Talk:2021 Japanese general election

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

Own Page for Opinion Polling[edit]

I Think that This time for the next Japanese general election there should be a separate page instead of it being on the main page. This is because many people use those pages in other election, for example Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election as a means of seeing the current opinion so it would be easier for them just to add that page to their watchlist. JDuggan101 21:58 26 October (UTC)

Hello, After A few Months of My original comment do people working on the page think the opinion polling should be separated from the main article. I am just wondering if there is any objection to the separation.JDuggan101 (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of polls do the graphs cover?[edit]

Is it House of Representatives election polling as the English title suggests or party approval rating (政党支持率, seitō shijiritsu) as the Japanese title suggests?
And if it is election polling, for which tier? Majoritarian or proportional, the former usually deciding who wins, the latter only becoming relevant if the FPTP ends up close [which it hasn't really ever since the introduction of parallel voting, and especially not in the latest five HR elections which were all FPTP landslides with the winning party getting >200 majoritarian seats which means that even an abysmal PR result (think LDP in 2012) will take you across the finish line, turning the PR election basically into an afterthought/mainly a playground for third parties]? Or is it all thrown together indiscriminately? Please clarify. --Asakura Akira (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if you directly asked the person that has been editing the graphs - BSMIsEditing, either on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. Here is their Wikipedia talk page - User talk:BSMIsEditing and here is their Wikimedia Commons page - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BSMIsEditing.
I have also raised the issue of the graphs needing updating here - Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Jun 2021#2021 Japanese general election graphs. BSMIsEditing mentioned there that he would start updating them again. Also pinging Pbrks (talk · contribs) encase they would like to be involved in this in any way. Helper201 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox inclusion criteria?[edit]

Just curious on if anybody has any idea about criteria for inclusion in the infobox. I asked on the WikiProject Elections page if there exists a site-wide consensus for infobox inclusion for parliamentary elections and the answer was no. Basically, the question is: Should having a at least one seat in the House be the criteria for inclusion in infobox, or something else? Off the top of my head, N-Koku is currently not included despite having one representative. Possible there are other parties missing too, someone could check me. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say any party with seats should be included. If there are more than nine, you could switch to {{Infobox legislative election}} like 2021 Israeli legislative election/2021 Dutch general election. Number 57 10:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added N-Koku to the infobox. Couldn't figure out how to get the party color in there though, maybe someone else can handle that. I believe this is now all of the parties in the House represented in the infobox, although I could be wrong. I believe the rest are all independents or vacant. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First no Kai?[edit]

Not sure how closely everyone here follows Japanese politics, but it was announced yesterday that the regional party Tomin First no Kai will be creating a national party "First no Kai" and running candidates in the election. Curious how we should handle this in the infobox. As a new party it obviously does not have any seats, but the party is likely to get decent media attention. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basil the Bat Lord, I'd say the best option would be if at least one reliable source can be found about this to add a section about it to the "Background" section using said source as a citation. Helper201 (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources for it, I am going to start a new section for it. Bwmdjeff (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Results page[edit]

Hello, I created a draft of a page that would show detailed election results, similar to Results of the 2017 Japanese general election. Right now it has a list of incumbents for every district, I just want to know when should I officially create the page. The day before the election (30 Oct)? Bwmdjeff (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is linked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Results_of_the_2021_Japanese_general_election Bwmdjeff (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Is there a website used to create the map? Dogman420 (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the maps are created on Inkscape, as to how, I am not the most sure on how to use it, but hopefully this can put you in the right direction. You can always leave a message on the creator of the maps' talk page asking for guidance.--Ornithoptera (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CDP/DPFP[edit]

@Impru20: The reason for the change is that the current CDP is the formal successor to both the 2017 CDP and Kibō no Tō. After the 2017 elections, Kibō no Tō merged into the original DPFP, which in turn merged with the 2017 CDP to form the current CDP. The current DPFP is a new party formed as a breakaway group opposed to the merger, and is not a successor to Kibō no Tō (and so should not inherit Kibō no Tō's previous election result). Cheers, Number 57 12:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Yeah, I figured it out that the reason for showing the comparison to the aggregated totals for the 2017 CDP and Kibō was the 2020 merging, but I still don't think the current CDP can be considered a successor to Kibō no Tō (in fact, had the proposed First no Kai party contested this election, it would probably have been considered Kibō's true successor). Maybe the current DPFP shouldn't, either, but then that would mean Kibō's results be left uncompared. Impru20talk 12:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't you consider the current CDP a successor to Kibō no Tō? The DPFP formally merged itself with the old CDP to create the new one, so the CDP is the proper successor to Kibō no Tō.
We can at least perhaps agree that the current DPFP should be marked as a new party? Cheers, Number 57 12:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A faction of Kibō no Tō did merge with a faction of the DP into an old form of the DPFP (whereas another party was formed retaining the same name and branding), which in turn did not wholly join the current CDPJ (with another faction of the DPFP retaining the same name and branding as well). I would hardly consider that as a "succession", or at least a directly comparable one, since there are multiple parties involved and new parties were formed retaining the former ones' brands. I can agree that we could mark DPFP as a new party as you suggest, though. Impru20talk 12:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. I was looking at it from a purely formal perspective, ignoring the various breakaways. I wonder if we should still add some kind of note to the CDP result noting that it absorbed a large chunk of what was Kibō no Tō? The party had effectively doubled in size since the previous election by the time of this one, so the +41 seat change could do with some explanation. Cheers, Number 57 12:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted making a summarized scheme of the various breakways and mergings to help us provide some context to the discussion. It would look something like this:
2016 Sep 2017 Oct 2017 May 2018 Apr 2019 Sep 2020
Democratic (2016) CDP (2017) CDP (2020)
Democratic (2016)
Kibō (2017) 		Kibō (2018)
First no Kai Kibō (2017) DPFP (2018) DPFP (2018) Merged with CDP (2020)
Liberal (2016) DPFP (2020)
And it would still not accurately reflect the actual state of things. Plainly described: Kibō no Tō was formed in September 2017 as a national expansion of Yuriko Koike's Tomin First no Kai, and then it received the support of the 2016 Democratic Party, which in turn led to a breakaway in the form of the 2017 CDP. Following the 2017 election, the majority of Kibō no Tō (which was no longer supported by Yuriko Koike's Tomin First no Kai) and the Democratic Party merged into the 2018 DPFP, but a breakaway from Kibō no Tō retained the party's name and branding (and so far, that party still exists today). Then in 2019, the 2016 Liberal Party joined the 2018 DPFP. In September 2020, both the 2017 CDP and the 2018 DPFP merged into the 2020 CDP, but another breakaway retained the DPFP's name and branding. And in October 2021, Tomin First no Kai announced a new national party, this time called "First no Kai", that however failed to contest the election due to it being hastily called shortly afterwards.
I think both the 2018 Kibō and the announced First no Kai could be arguably considered as successors to the 2017 Kibō: one as the direct retainer of the party's name and branding, and the other one as Yuriko Koike's party (which was the original spirit of the 2017 Kibō). Beyond that, it is a wonderful mess.
Your proposal of adding an explanation to the CDP's seat change seems reasonable, since I cannot conceive another way to appropiately describe the situation without leading to some serious misleading for readers. Impru20talk 13:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this note (to go against the 'Last election' result for the CDP make sense? "Result for the original Constitutional Democratic Party. In 2020 it merged with the Democratic Party for the People, the formal successor to Kibō no Tō, which had won 50 seats in the 2017 elections. Some former members of both Kibō no Tō and the DPFP had objected to the successive mergers and did not join the new CDP; going into the 2021 elections, the new CDP held 109 seats." Number 57 16:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just do it the way the Japanaese language version of the page does it? The have a row for "seats won last election" and a row for "seats held at time of election" that way it will be totally clear. Also, important to note the JP version says "new party" for CDP under "seats won at last election" - because the CDP of now is different from the CDP of then, so it's unfair to attribute those 55 seats to them. The CDP didn't win any seats last election, because the CDP of today didn't exist then. It's very misleading to continue showing simply "seats won at last election" and "seats won this election" because, as others have pointed out, it mistakenly shows that parties have gained seats when they have in fact lost them.219.100.31.164 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answering you both: Number 57 that footnote seems nice, though it should be noted that the English wiki article on the CDP is the same for both the 2017 and the 2020, so they are really treated as very direct successor parties anyway. @219.100.31.164: as just noted on the 2017/2020 CDP, but also the fact that comparison does not need to be made to the same party; it can be done between a former party and its successor, with the 2020 CDP being a clear successor to the 2017 CDP and not really a "new" party in a sense that conveys that it was newly-established (just check as examples, just for Japanese electios, the New Frontier Party in 1996). The issue here was Kibō no Tō, a version of which currently exists as a minor party (that did not field candidates for the election), and that was based on Tomin First no Kai, the Tokyo-based party that was also intent on fielding candidates ahead of this election under a brand new name. Thus, it's doubtful the 2020 CDP can be considered as a legal successor to Kibō. Impru20talk 08:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the seat change numbers based on?[edit]

In the infobox, are the up/down seat change numbers supposed to be based on the last election or the standing at the time of the election? It makes a big difference for a party like the CDP: if you compare it to 2017 then they gained a lot of seats (because they were a new party) but if you compare it to the state of things on the day of the election they actually lost seats. This should be clarified. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are meant to be compared to the previous election. Cheers, Number 57 14:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be, that's incredibly misleading. The table should show the seats held at the time of the election, like the JP version of the page does.219.100.31.164 (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there has to be some better way to convey this information. I came to the talk page to ask why the table (which shows the CDP gaining 41 seats) was at odds with the paragraph immediately afterwards, which says the CDP lost seats. It's very confusing. --Jfruh (talk) 07:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the text to make it clear the difference between the performance at the last election and the number of seats in the outgoing parliament. Number 57 09:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that and it's still very confusing: the table shows the CDP gaining 41 seats and right below it says "The two largest opposition parties, the Constitutional Democratic Party and the Japanese Communist Party, both lost seats despite their unified candidate agreement and joint policy platform." The rewording that Number 57 mentions is urgently required! BobBadg (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did reword it, but the wording seems to have gone missing. I've restored it. Number 57 21:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​​​I think it would be a good idea if we added to one of the sections in the main body of the article (or created its own section for it) the changes for each party between the day before the election and after. It would help to clarify the situation for readers in the misunderstanding that will occur when people see that certain parties had more seats before the election and less after, and yet these parties are shown to have increased seats due to the figures being a comparison between elections. Essentially it would help clarify the situation for readers and help alleviate confusion. Helper201 (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it perfect, but the table for the latest Canadian election has separate columns for number of seats won at the previous election and the number of seats held at dissolution, which might be a helpful thing to add to this table. --Jfruh (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think this situation can be resolved by comparing the CDP result against the combined results of the CDP and Kibō no Tō in 2017 (as the two parties were part of the series of mergers that created the current CDP). This would mean the CDP result would be a loss of nine seats instead of a gain. The article did briefly reflect this situation here, but the section above is a discussion that followed the change to the current seat change figures. Cheers, Number 57 21:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the underlying situation itself seems to be pretty confusing -- if I'm understanding it correctly, most (but not all) of the Democratic Party for the People merged into what became the CDP between this election and the previous election, so both had very different numbers of MPs on the eve of election than they did after the previous election, right? It might be worthwhile to just have a paragraph before the table laying out all the splits and mergers succinctly. --Jfruh (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit the tables[edit]

Hello. Someone has updated the new number of seats but not all the data for the election so the seat change numbers for example are all wrong. the problem is that I cannot edit the tables. I click edit and then the tables come up as some kind of template which I can't figure out. I'm happy to add all the numbers but I don't know how to do the editing. Tesolatdotorg (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are all correct as far as I can see (aside from the debate over the CDP change). Number 57 09:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CDP dropped from 109 to 96 Yes, last election they had 55, but there have since been mergers so we can't say they went up this election. They dropped seats.

Reiwa Shinsengumi This is not a new party and they went from 1 to 3. Of course they didn't run in the last election, but they started the election with 1 seat as there was a sitting member who switched.

SDP Yes, they had two last time, but one person switched away and they started the election with 1 not 2, and therefore they didn't really go down one.

So, of course there needs to be a dividing line to compare, but this method is not sufficient with the changing nature of Japanese politics. This chart makes it look like the CDP did well, but the actually dropped 13 seats and the leader Edano is going to resign.

Therefore, there should be three lines:

2017 results 2021 at dissolution 2021 new results

The results table has all the same problems.Tesolatdotorg (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if I can figure out how to add another row and a column to the results table, I will like to add this important information. Many people just read charts so the charts need to tell the actual story in as far as it is possible. Tesolatdotorg (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The seat changes are meant to be compared to the last election, so Reiwa Shinsengumi are a new party, and the SDP are down one. I agree the CDP result is misleading and would be happy to change it to –9 based on the combined results of the original CDP and Kibō no Tō per the discussions above. In the meantime, I have replaced the CDP seat change with a footnote explaining the situation. Number 57 09:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison with seats at dissolution is not done in infoboxes for almost any country, nor for Japanese elections themselves (only Canada did it, but there was a recent discussion where even this strange feature was debated since no one knew where did such practice come from). This is most easily explained with vote shares: you cannot compare the vote share in the election with some "vote share at dissolution" because that does not make any sense, so the same happens with seats, with the measure of comparison for both vote shares and seats being the same (i.e. the previous election). As for the inclusion of Kibō no Tō into CDP's totals, that's misleading as per explained in previous discussions (especially considering it was not a full merge and that a party retaining the old one's name and brand still exists). Many examples can be brought to back this, but for one instance, Kibō no Tō's results in 2017 are not compared to DP totals in 2014, despite most of the party (which had seen successive mergers and re-foundations as well) throwing its full support behind Kibō. Impru20talk 10:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vote share thing is a very good point – we compare swings to the previous election, and it follows logically that seat changes should be the same.
Another alternative (if there is no consensus for showing CDP as +41 or –9) is to list it as a new party (which it technically is) and potentially still include the footnote. Number 57 11:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'm looking at articles for previous Japanese elections and it looks like this is what is typically done for Japan in the en.wiki: aside of the commented 2017 example (no comparison with the 2014 Democratic Party's result), you have the Innovation Party in 2014 (not compared to 2012 Restoration's results), the Democratic Party in 2000 (not compared to 1996 Democratic or New Frontier's results) or the SDP in 1996 (not compared to 1993 Socialist's results). However, I think the CDP's case here is further complicated by the fact that both the 2017 CDP and the 2020 CDP share the same Wikipedia article. Should we split these into two different articles to help convey the idea that these are two related, but distinct, political parties (in the same way as Democratic Party (Japan, 1996), Democratic Party (Japan, 1998) and Democratic Party (Japan, 2016) have their own, separate articles, despite being their own successors)? Impru20talk 11:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, are you saying yes to showing the CDP as new? Agree with the idea of splitting the CDP article. Cheers, Number 57 11:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whether we consider the 2017 CDP and the 2020 CDP as different entities or the same one. Looks like the currently-established practice for Japanese election articles is to depict a new party as truly new, even if it can be regarded as a legal successor to a previous party, and some times even if it shares the same name and branding as the previous party (I think the only exception is the New Frontier Party at the 1996 election, which is compared to the aggregated totals of its five components). If that is an established practice for previous Japanese elections, then we should follow suit here (or, alternatively, reach a new consensus that is applied retroactively to other articles, but that would be much more complicated). However, I think we cannot do that for as long as the "two" CDPs are shown to be a single entity in the same article, as it deviates from the practice of previous elections (and is what made me to defend their direct comparison in the discussion above).
So, to sum it up: yes to showing the CDP as new if the 2020 party is to be considered a different entity as the 2017 party (but that would imply changes to its article and a likely split, but note there was already a discussion on this issue at Talk:Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan#How to handle new party? which failed to materialize); no to showing it as new if the two parties are to be considered the same entity, even with the mergings and such. Impru20talk 11:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are the same entity – it's a separate one created by mergers that happens to have the same name. Personally, I don't think splitting the CDP article is a requisite for showing the CDP as 'New' here. Number 57 11:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly a requisite (I mean, you can show the CDP as new before going on to split the page), but it won't help readers to actually differentiate the entities, specially when for other elections different articles exist for separate parties, even if similarly-branded. It's a major lack of consistency that will probably lead to edit conflicts on comparison issues with 2017. Impru20talk 13:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"others" at election results[edit]

i personally would prefer if there would be more parties, perhaps all parties, be listed despite them having no seats. "Others" gives not much information. Virtroxiam (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party leader images[edit]

​​​​​I'm not sure if there is any agreed upon criteria for the images of the party leaders in the infobox but I think for Mizuho Fukushima this image - File:Mizuho Fukushima 2010.jpg - would be better than the one that is currently used. Its more professional and their face can more clearly be seen. I tried using this image in the infobox a while back but it was changed to the one that is currently being used for this person. What do other editors think, should we change it back to this image? Helper201 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's a better image. Cheers, Number 57 18:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing as it is to see someone talking into two microphones duct-taped together, this picture is clearly better. --Jfruh (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this one is a better picture. Impru20talk 23:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why were half the images changed to the leaders campaigning with masks on? Even if they're more up-to-date pictures for some of them, it doesn't make sense to use pictures where you can't even see their faces considering many of them have proper, official portrait photos similar to the Fukushima one that was referenced here. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​​Pinging other editors of these photos. Please let us know why you changed these images and your thoughts on the photos of the parties leaders in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate results[edit]

Hi everyone, in the german wiki page about this election I found this PDF that should contain accurate results. The source is the japanese Ministry for Interior Affairs and is consistent with the source of the 2017 election results. Here follows an updated table with the updated results, I'll leave it here for some days so that anyone can double check the source and eventually correct any error. Main changes with the previous results:

  • Slightly different changes for the figures of some parties
  • Shift of 2 seats from LDP to Independents
  • Addition of minor parties instead of the "other parties" category
  • An updated version of the svg image according to the changes in seats distribution

Additional notes:

  • In some cases the figures contained one or more decimals, in that cases I just approximated to the nearest integer
  • I ranked the parties that didn't get any seats first according to the votes received in the Proportional voting and secondly according to the votes of the single-member constituencies, though I'm not sure that it's the best solutin aesthetically, feel free to suggest another rule
  • The total number of valid votes for the proportional voting is indicated as 57,465,979 at pages 28 and 35 of the PDF, and as 57,465,981 at page 37. Since the first figure is consistent with the sum of the votes of the single parties I used that one.

--Fm3dici97 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been through it and fixed one or two numbers due to rounding errors. The votes for the main parties are all correct; I didn't check the minor party names, but the figures add up correctly. Seats also seem to be correct. Cheers, Number 57 17:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PartyProportionalConstituencyTotal
seats		+/–
Votes%SeatsVotes%Seats
Liberal Democratic Party19,914,88334.667227,626,23548.08187259–25
Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan11,492,09520.003917,215,62129.965796New
Nippon Ishin no Kai8,050,83014.01254,802,7938.361641+30
Komeito7,114,28212.3823872,9311.52932+3
Japanese Communist Party4,166,0767.2592,639,6314.59110–1
Democratic Party for the People2,593,3964.5151,246,8122.17611New
Reiwa Shinsengumi2,215,6483.863248,2800.4303New
Social Democratic Party1,018,5881.770313,1930.5511–1
The Party to Protect the People from NHK796,7881.390150,5420.2600New
Shiji Seitō Nashi46,1420.08000
Japan First Party33,6610.0609,4490.0200New
Yamato Party16,9700.03015,0910.0300New
New Party to Strengthen Corona Countermeasures by Change of Government6,6200.0100New
Kunimori Conservative Party29,3060.0500New
Love Earth Party5,3500.0100New
Party for Japanese Kokoro4,5520.01000
Reform Future Party3,6980.0100New
Renewal Party2,7500.0000New
Party for a Successful Japan1,6300.0000New
Independents2,269,1683.951212–10
Total57,465,979100.0017657,457,032100.002894650
Valid votes57,465,97997.5857,457,03297.55
Invalid/blank votes1,425,3662.421,443,2272.45
Total votes58,891,345100.0058,900,259100.00
Registered voters/turnout105,224,10355.97105,224,10355.98
Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

"Infobox election" vs "Infobox legislative election"[edit]

Infobox legislative election
Pros:

1. Vertical layout making it easier to tell apart who's the larger party in the election.
2. More compact

Cons: lack the ability of conveying many critical information, namely

1. Doesn't distinguish seats won in the last election and seats before dissolution(which can be important in the cases of parties that formed midway through parliaments, such as the CDP or the DPFP). In the case of the 2021 Japanese general election it convey the false impression of the CDP & DPFP were entirely new parties gaining seats for the first time.
2. Doesn't distinguish seats won and seats post election (important in bodies with staggered elections such as the Japanese House of Councilors or the US Senates).
3. Can't distinguish the constituency-PR popular votes in mixed system.'
4. No slot for pictures of leaders. Faces are much more memorable and recognizable the leaders' names, especially if you aren't familiar with the language of said country.
5. No slot for swing

Infobox election
Pros: More customizable, allowing you to convey more information.
Cons:

1. Less compact layout
2. Large profile pictures of leaders can be misleading in legislative elections.


IMO, If we can update the legislative election infobox template to address its shortcomings, it'd be superior in every sense. But before it'd be better for us to stick with the older template. Thoughts? @Number 57: —沁水湾 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe {{Infobox legislative election}} has any significant shortcomings that need addressing TBH. Picture of leaders are completely unnecessary – people are voting for parties. The constituency votes weren't being shown anyway. Cheers, Number 57 09:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons 57 stated. This is a legislative election, not a presidential one, where the leader/candidate is the focus of attention. Anyway, changes to composition can be explained via a table, like with the tables on the SK election pages I've been adding (harder to find figures for early elections though). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you can hover over the links to see the leaders on desktop (don't know about mobile, since I don't use it for here). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Example being this page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated the page to show the seats at the last election and before the election too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picture used of Fumio Kishida[edit]

The current image used to represent Fumio Kishida doesn't seem ... the most appropriate. Bearsca (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been replaced with a seemingly even less relevant picture. Bearsca (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is no picture ... Bearsca (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox legislative election[edit]

Why is this template being used for the last couple Japanese general election pages including this one. Every other pages of a general election involving a parliamentary democracy (Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) uses Infobox election? Been wondering why its a different case for Japan Ken Aeron (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Every other page"? Have you checked the articles on elections in the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Israel etc. Number 57 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherlands, Denmark, Italy and Israel are all exempted because the limit for the number of political parties that you can include on Infobox election is 9. All four of these nations had way more than 9 major parties involved in their last general elections, which requires the use of Infobox legislative election.
This is not the case for Japan. 2021 involved 8 parties, 2017 had 7, you get my point Ken Aeron (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as exemptions or requirements for types of infoboxes. How many parties in 2012 by the way? Number 57 17:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that they wouldn't have been able to use Infobox election with the amount of parties they had in their respective elections. I was just curious how the decision was made and what was the reasoning behind the change in the infoboxes of all Japanese election pages after 1990 to Infobox legislative election when until recently, the former was used for all of the pages? Ken Aeron (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning is that it does a far better job of summarising the election result. If one compares this with this, the advantages are clear, the main one being that the latter is far more compact at roughly half the size, with all party results visible without having to scroll. Images of individual are not appropriate for a parliamentary election – this is not a vote for people (like a presidential election) but a vote for parties. I think the idea is for all Japanese articles to be converted; ValenciaThunderbolt was in the process of doing so but seems to have been sidetracked. Number 57 18:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the reason I've stopped (though will go back to it) is because I'm on Fandom and I'm sorting things out over there, as I'm an admin of a wiki. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Japanese_general_election&oldid=1196884557"