Template talk:Infobox election/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Parliamentary elections: alignment of outgoing and elected members (and arrows)

Hi, in 2015 Canadian federal election, 2017 United Kingdom general election, etc. that use this template, could the "<- outgoing members" be aligned to the left with the previous election (for easier readability)?

Also the right arrow after the "elected members" should probably be removed, as it does not refer to the next election but rather the currently displayed one.

Also could the "elected members" appear centered below the date of the election? If this requires the outgoing members to drop down a line, I think that would be fine as the elected members are much more important to the currently displayed election than the outgoing members.

Cheers and thanks for all the great work, VicGuy (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@VicGuy: Sorry for the delay. I've fixed the issue of it appearing over two rows. Not sure about elected members being in the centre though, as it would potentially look unbalanced with nothing on the right. The outgoing/elected split also matches the outgoing/elected Prime Minister at the bottom. Number 57 16:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bolding issue

Well first of all, I have to say something about myself. I have been editing election articles over the years, mostly Hong Kong-related and also a little bit Japanese and Taiwanese. As I have read most of the election articles on wikipedia, the winner of the election is bolded in the infobox and the highest votes and percentage as well. So I thought it was a common practice of this community to bold the winner, the votes and etc.. But then when I tried to bold the winner in 2016 Taiwan presidential election, my edit was reverted by User:Number 57 on the basis of a six-user discussion in a certain place and certain time where mostly two users contributed, one of them being User:Number 57, without any conclusion [1]. So I reverted with a strong belief that it is not the general practice of the community as WP:CON states that "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", it got reverted again and I reverted back [2] and I got blocked, as I also had another dispute with the mentioned user on some other issue.

So in order to overwrite the so-called "consensus" I think is neither justified nor reasonable. I am inviting all members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to join this discussion which I hope would be as broad as it can get and as fair as possible to reach a decision on the issue. And here is my argument for the bolding as the following:

  1. The winner does not necessarily have the most votes, as 2000 and 2016 United States presidential elections, as well as February 1974 United Kingdom general election and 2003 Japanese general election have showed. Bolding in those cases have a practical function to highlight this fact to the readers.
  2. In some elections such as 2014 Taiwanese local elections where more than one category of offices are up for contest, sometimes one party win in one category but lose in the other one. Bolding in those cases again can make it clearer to the readers.
  3. Since the above, but not limited to the above, cases show there is a need for bolding in the election infobox, why don't we just practice this in all election infobox to keep consistency (as it would be weird to bold in 2000 and 2016 presidential elections but not 2004 and 2008, in Japanese elections but not in Taiwan, local but not national), as I can't think of any harm to bold the winner in other elections in which winner is easily noticed.

As I hope to set a good example of a consensus in a wide scale, any response, either for or against, is welcome. Please invite as many interested parties to this too. Thank you. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support I agree with Lmmnhn that we should bold the names of the winners and the highest vote totals and percentages. I also think we should bold the names of the parties that won as well. Mr.Election (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Bolding parties doesn't work because the name entered in the infobox is used to identify the meta template rather than being a direct wikilink. This is another reason why the bolding shouldn't be done, as not all items can be bolded. Number 57 19:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The bolding issue in election infobox has been lingering for too much time without a clear answer to it. I don't think there is a clear consensus on it aside from minor discussions at times when specific issues arise (the 2014 one you link was raised seemingly in response to an outbreak of IPs going crazy into text-bolding infoboxes throughout Wikipedia). Indeed, it seemed to be "standard practice" for some time to automatically bold the winner in election infoboxes, despite no clear purpose behind it (indeed, infoboxes are designed so that the winner is shown first, so you do not need to bold it to highlight such a fact again). Nonetheless, I see it as useful when it comes to points 1 and 2, but I have my reservations to make it automatic as you suggest in point 3. Maybe it could have more sense for presidential elections, where the election typically goes to the vote winner. However, for parliamentary elections I've seen from my experience that bolding proves rather pointless, as the most voted party is not necessarily the one forming government, and more than just one party could end up being part of the government. I would say for bolding to be used when it is actually needed to highlight something that is not already clear at first glance, so while I agree with points 1 and 2, I disagree with your overall proposal of automatically bolding the winner for all kind of elections. Impru20talk 19:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@User:Impru20, I am not sure if the 2000 and 2016 US presidential election would the case which actually need "to highlight something that is not already clear at first glance" in your point of view. But if it is so as you seem to agree with me in point 1, it would be even more confusing to the readers to bold in 2000 but not 2004, 2008 and 2012 but to bold again in 2016 who would navigate through the US presidential election articles. But I do share your concerns that in some parliamentary elections like Norway, Sweden and Denmark where the parties which receive the most votes are not necessarily the parties who form the government. However, bolding in my understanding means who is the winner in that category, such as the elected candidate (e.g. Donald Trump in 2016 election), electoral votes (e.g. Trump's 304), popular votes and percentage (Clinton's 65,853,514 and 48.2%). Same rule can apply to the parliamentary elections where we can bold the most seats and votes (e.g. Labour's 49 seats and 800,949 votes in 2017 Norwegian parliamentary election) while the leader with the highest votes (e.g. Støre as he was not elected as PM) is not bolded. That could be the compromise we can make. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lmmnhn: it would be even more confusing to the readers to bold in 2000 but not 2004, 2008 and 2012 but to bold again in 2016 No, as in such a case it will be very clear that bolding is used to highlight that the popular vote winner is not the same person than the one winning the electoral vote. The infobox is already designed to show candidates/parties based on their results; bolding the winner will only mean you will be highlighting twice who's the winner (the first would be made evident from that candidate/party being shown in first place in the infobox). Nonetheless, my concerns are most specifically focused on parliamentary elections, where being the vote winner means nothing, so bolding in these is basically pointless and even counterproductive: you may bold the winner just to see the second and third parties to join together and form a government not including the most voted party (this happens very frequently, Andalusia may serve as a very recent successful example of one such alliance). As per MOS:BOLD, bolding must have an usage; I can't see how bolding for the sake of bolding is helpful. Impru20talk 20:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose bolding Pointless affectation that adds nothing to the infobox. It's clear who's won by where they are placed in it. And you can't bold the party/alliance rows as that function uses the meta templates, so it just ends up looking inconsistent.
Would also be interested to know why some editors who are not listed here were invited to join the discussion, as it could give the impression of selective invitation. Number 57 19:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I have already tagged you and invited everyone on the list as far I know. I might have missed someone as I was copying and pasting my invitation message on over 70 members' talk pages in five minutes. As I do not know anyone on the list, I have no basis on selecting/excluding anyone. If I did miss someone, why don't you invite them yourself. As I have said above, I am seeking a consensus in the widest scale as possible so all interested parties are welcome. Lmmnhn (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You invited several people not on the list; that's what looks odd. Especially when some of those additional people are editors who recently supported your viewpoint in another ongoing discussion... Number 57 20:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
And now you've invited the editor who vehemently supported bolding in the previous discussion, but none of those who opposed using it (@Doktorbuk, GoldRingChip, and Fanx:). This is a pretty clear violation of WP:CANVASS. Number 57 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I have totally no problem with inviting them as I already did. Lmmnhn (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You only invited them after I called you out on it. Number 57 20:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Whatever you say. Instead of keeping it a discussion with a handful of users that I know personally, I have invited over 80 editors who I do not know without knowing their opinions beforehand. I think I am fair enough and you can take false accusation and threats elsewhere. Lmmnhn (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary. Leaky Caldron 20:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose bolding I tried to look at general Manual of Style guidance here and there's nothing specific, but MOS:BOLD ("Boldface [...] is considered appropriate only for certain usages"), MOS:BADEMPHASIS ("Avoid various kinds of overemphasis") and MOS:IBX ("infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative") err on the side of avoiding additional formatting like this. We could do various complicated things with bolding, as per Lmmnhn, but if they're not obvious or explained to the novice reader, then they're pointless. We shouldn't be doing things just for ourselves: we write for the novice reader. Aesthetically, I think it over-complicates. The order parties are listed in the infobox conveys the key information. Generally, I think we need to spend less time fiddling around with infoboxes and more time adding prose to articles. That's the best way of putting in place the appropriate context and explaining points of interest. Bondegezou (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose automatic bolding as per Bondegezou and my own reasoning above. I can support when appropiate in situations where the vote winner and the seat winner are not the same parties/candidates, but otherwise it adds nothing but unnecessary decoration. Impru20talk 20:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose bolding There was once (maybe it still exists) something on Wikipedia which said, "If you care about painting the fence outside rather than deciding on the location of the fire exit, you've got the wrong priorities." This has always stuck with me when editing around here. Bolding does nothing to the article, it just shows the winner. In a FPTP election where the election results box has been correctly edited, the winner will be obviously at the top. No bolding required, no painting of the fence outside. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when appropriate If there's a difference between the candidate with most votes, seats up for election, or total seats; or in other situations where infobox order doesn't communicate everything. Ralbegen (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when appropriate Bolding is mostly unnecessary, but when the winner loses the popular vote it should be bolded to highlight that important detail to anybody causally viewing the article. Jon698 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral – I just stick to US presidential articles by state; I have no preference with regard to bolding or not. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when appropriate Because only one ordering is possible, it's useful to bold by other possible orderings (e.g. seat count, direct/indirect votes, etc.). In other situations, bolding is probably excessive. AdamFilinovich (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment A number of people above (Impru20, Ralbegen, Jon698, AdamFilinovich) have suggested "support when appropriate", bolding, e.g. "when the winner loses the popular vote". I would like to suggest that this is problematic and maybe even a worse solution to no bolding or always bolding. There are two issues here: (1) how you communicate something, and (2) what it is that you want to communicate.
Bolding "when appropriate" would mean occasional articles have bolding. We would have a relatively complex rule as to when that bolding was applied, but there would be nothing telling the reader what the bolding means. The reader would be left having to work out why bolding was used in a particular context. Wikipedia should not be some sort of logic puzzle where readers have to compare articles and figure out some pattern. This is poor design. If you want to communicate to the reader that there was a notable outcome, the popular vote winner lost, then do that with words. Add a footnote saying "Note that party X won the popular vote but came second in seats"! Make sure it's in the lede. If it's important to communicate something, then we need to communicate it clearly (and if it isn't important to communicate something, then let's keep things simple).
Which leads to the second point, what do you want to communicate? We're falling into WP:OR here. The Wikipedia way to decide what the key observations should be about an election (or anything) is to follow what reliable secondary and tertiary sources say are the key observations about that election. If reliable sources highlight that the popular vote winner was different to the actual winner, great, but what if they don't? We cannot presume that it is always notable information. If, say, a US Senate election shows a discordance between seats won and the popular vote, is that a flaw that must be highlighted, or is that a design feature? US Senate elections were never meant to be about the popular vote: it's WP:EDITORIALIZING to start emphasising that discordance as being particularly notable. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a good argument. Fundamentally the point I was trying to make has been made better by AdamFilinovich): sometimes infobox order alone is inadequate to communicate the key facts about an election, and the use of bold is an established and easily-comprehensible way of getting additional information across. I follow your point that popular voteshare or seats won out of those up for election such as in a UK council thirds election or in a US senate election aren't always established as key information about an election in reliable sources. However, these discrepancies when they occur are often highlighted in reliable sources, and I think applying infobox formatting selectively would be more confusing to readers. I appreciate that this is also an issue with the position I took above, but I think it'd be to a much lesser extent. Ralbegen (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I remain worried that we're introducing something that is "established and easily-comprehensible" for editors, but not for readers. How is a reader meant to know what the bolding means (short of diving into a Template talk discussion like this)? Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Just so this doesn't go unanswered: personally I don't believe I ever had an issue understanding what bolding meant before I started editing. Non-editor readers do fairly often take to the Talk page of election articles about infobox-related topics, but I don't think I've ever seen confusion about bolding. If consensus is to maintain or extend the use of bold text in election infoboxes, and we find that readers get nothing out of it or it impairs understanding, I think that would very reasonably be grounds to reopen discussion. Ralbegen (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ralbegen: There is also an issue with parliamentary elections insomuch as the party with the most votes or seats does not necessarily form the government, so cannot be said to have 'won' the election in any sense. For example, if we did have to use bolding, who would you bold in the infobox of 2010 Swedish general election? Following the elections, a government was formed by the parties finishing 2nd, 4th, 5th and 8th. Number 57 11:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Lmmnhn consistency is a good goal and bolding is helpful in more complex outcomes and does no harm in easily identified outcomes. RogerGLewis (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Bolding is frequently useful and informative. It may be especially useful not only when there is a divergence in winner/seats/vote%, but also when a coalition wins or when the winner has less than 50% and their status is not obvious. Reywas92Talk 01:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Bolding makes it very easy to quickly see who won the election without having to scan elsewhere, parse the numbers, or figure out whether the ordering matters. I also think it would be better to be consistent rather than just when it clarifies the winner so that its usage is clear across all articles.S-1-5-7 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment The ordering should always be clear. If it's not, that's something that I think we should work on to ensure consistency. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support bolding of names and nothing else on single winner elections. For legislative elections, no bolding. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Bolding names and percentage.Newystats (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Bold as per it is. For ROC part which i have been editing, legislative, local (bold - popular votes, percentage and seats won (same as UK general election), municipal & presidential (Popular votes & percentage). I would suggest to follow through the UK and US election format. Ramone122Talk 13:47, 21 January 2019 (GMT+8)
  • Support I agree with Lmmnhn consistency is a good goal and bolding is helpful in more complex outcomes and does no harm in easily identified outcomes. RogerGLewis (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There are no reasons not to bold. Bolding only makes the information clearer and easier to find at a glance. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Two problems here, as I see it. Firstly, bolding doesn't make the information clearer if it's not clear why something is bolded. Secondly, what we already have is clear and easy to see at a glance: the winner of the election is listed first, the person who came second comes second. That's a more obvious convention (first means first) and seems very clear to me.
But the issue has been raised that who came first is complicated. As Lmmnhn points out at the beginning of this discussion, you've got the 2000 United States presidential election etc. Should we therefore be highlighting the popular vote winner? Notably, we recently had a discussion around that point at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_12#Category:Elections_not_won_by_the_popular_vote_winner and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Category:Elections_not_won_by_the_popular_vote_winner. Those discussions concluded that it gets too complicated and subjective to determine what counts. To quote, BrownHairedGirl, "Blatantly subjective POV-pushing on a topic which can be analaysed in many different ways." It's the same here. What counts and what doesn't? It's subjective, ergo you can't just make simple rules for an infobox. We know who won, because they take office(s). To start highlighting other numbers requires a subjective judgement that these other numbers are significant. If the community has already ruled out a category of "Elections not won by the popular vote winner", it doesn't make sense that we re-introduce this as a feature of infobox formatting. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I see some support !votes are actually incompatible and contradictory. Some support full bolding; others support a limited bolding depending on the situation; others limit the bolding depending on the kind of election; others limit the bolding to specific fields but not to others; and so on. That some support !votes are pile-on does not help any further. I agree with Bondegezou's remarks on the issue that this is too subjective and potentially in violation of OR to be considered so lightly, and I think a case should be made on why and how bolding would be helpful for practical purposes, because that is not being left clear at all. It looks like some of those supporting a bolding do so out of personal preference on how they think the infobox should be bolded, which should not be the goal here. Impru20talk 10:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I move that this comment be completely ignored, since its literally "Everyone disagrees with me so I'll say 'No, only people posting 'oppose' count, if you post 'support' your arguments are irrelevant". Bomberswarm2 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
That seems a tad harsh, Bomberswarm2. As per WP:VOTE, this shouldn't merely be a vote of for and against. It should be a discussion of the merits or problems with different proposals, drawing where possible on existing Wikipedia policy and guidance, and moving towards a WP:consensus. Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bondegezou: I think you are giving too much interpretation into the bolding issue. The bolding from what I see is merely to highlight winner/the highest number in a particular category. For example in the 2016 US presidential election, Trump and Pence were highlighted with their electoral votes because they were the winner of the election and they received the most electoral votes, while Clinton's popular vote and % were highlighted as the numbers were the highest. It is simply mathematical and perfectly objective and therefore to say it is WP:OR or WP:POV is irrelevant. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The 2000 and 2016 US Presidential elections are simple cases: 2 main candidates, clear difference between the electoral votes won and the popular vote, plenty of reliable sources noting the discrepancy. But if you are making a rule, it has to work for all cases, not just the simple ones. Other elections are more complicated. We've had two (related) Wikipedia discussions recently that concluded that talking about a popular vote winner isn't always straightforward. To say that 50000 is bigger than 40000 is perfectly objective. To say that the national US Senate popular vote has meaning when the system explicitly is not designed around a national popular vote is not objective. Numbers exist in a context. What numbers mean is contextual. Bondegezou (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. Bolding the larger number is merely because the number is larger. Party A receives more national popular votes than Party B and therefore its popular vote is bolded. That is only meaning of it, plain and simple. To say it suggests some subjective meaning is overinterpreted. If your argument really stood then the popular vote should not even be included in the Senate election infobox either, as it , in your word, would be suggestive of something that the national US Senate popular vote has meaning. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a difference between Wikipedia going, "Here are the numbers," and Wikipedia going, "Look this number being bigger is an important thing." We are talking about emphasis. Why are you emphasising that a particular number is bigger? Because you believe it is significant. But Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on what individual editors think. Highlighting who won the election is one thing -- that's generally clear -- but highlighting different numbers for different parties/candidates starts to be WP:EDITORIALIZING. It's saying, "Look at this!" Bondegezou (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support — By bolding, readers will have an easier time identifying the winner. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 10:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @JayCoop: Could you give an example of an election infobox where the winner of the election wouldn't be clear without bolding? And which party would you bold in the infobox of 2010 Swedish general election? Number 57 10:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
      • This one. At first glance you would think that Parker recieved more votes in Maryland because he got a majority of the electoral votes, and the vote is very close, but that is not correct. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
        • The winner of that election is placed first in the infobox; the bolding of their name is not needed to identify them as the winner. Number 57 12:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
          • But... they didn't 'win'... Roosovelt got more votes... you've literally proven why bolding is required. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
            • Roosevelt may have received more votes, but Parker won that election as they received the most electoral votes from the state, which is what was being contested. Number 57 14:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Indeed. Under the rules of that election, Parker won. To say otherwise is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, unless you have WP:RS making the same point. That's my concern. We can't just, without context, say this number is bigger than that number. When it comes to interpreting those numbers, we need to follow sources. Some blanket infobox template rule isn't going to work. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as that's been the practice on the infoboxes of election articles, that I've puttered around over the years. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this seems like a common sense standard to a long-established practice, one that makes gleaning information from election articles significantly easier. Westroopnerd (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment For all those in support of bolding (@GoodDay, Westroopnerd, RogerGLewis, Ramone122, S-1-5-7, Reywas92, and Mr.Election: etc), can you say what you'd bold in the infobox of articles like 2010 Swedish general election, bearing in mind that the party that came first in terms of votes and seats did not form the government? Given the complexity of election results, simply saying "support" doesn't really clarify what specifically you're supporting being bolded. Number 57 15:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd bold the party which held the most seats before, the most seats won in the election, the most votes in the election, the largest percentage of the vote, and the name of the party , the leader and the alliance of the party which ended up forming governement, incidentally a perfect example of why bolding is required as I could not tell that until I scrolled down to the bottom of the infobox and read that it was the second listed party, the moderates. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
As I've tried to point out numerous times in this discussion, you cannot bold the party. The infobox coding does not allow it. Number 57 17:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I've no problems with not bolding parliamentary election articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I mocked up a quick test page here using that Swedish election data where I bolded the name of the candidate in the infobox. A second infobox bolds the name and party/alliance. I also threw in a regular infobox that shows the detailed election results with the winner bolded.S-1-5-7 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@S-1-5-7: But why would you bold the leader/party that didn't win the election? The Social Democrats were the opposition party after this vote. And as you can see, bolding the party doesn't work on election infoboxes because of the code that's used. Number 57 16:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Number 57: That is a good point. I swapped it to the alliance leader.
  • Support bolding as a default, but allow exceptions where it makes sense (i.e., IAR). I look at the 2004, 2008, and 2012 United States presidential election articles, and bolding the winner makes it easy, at a glance, to identify who won. (The fact that the winner is also listed on the left is too subtle for me; I didn't even know that meant they were the winner until I read this thread; it's the bold that I notice, not left/right positioning.) When I look at the 2000 and 2016 articles, the bolding quickly tells me that the popular vote and electoral vote winners are split. I'm OK with not bolding parliamentary elections if there is no clear winner (nobody got a majority). I imagine some parliamentary elections result in a party gaining a majority and going on to form a government, in which case they could be bolded. Sure, there are going to be some situations where we shouldn't bold, but that should be the exception not the rule. I agree with Lmmnhn about the need for consistency across articles, and the original post here was talking about a Taiwanese presidential election article, which seems perfectly appropriate to bold. Finally, I support bold because WP always says "be bold" :-) Levivich? ! 17:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Interesting that you didn't pick up on the person coming first being the winner. I would guess that's because those were elections with only 2 (significant) candidates, so it's then not obvious. In most elections, there are several parties/people listed, in which case the ordering is more apparent perhaps.
We also have several people now suggesting we treat Presidential and Parliamentary elections differently, with much less enthusiasm about bolding on Parliamentary elections. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Number 57 Number 57 I live in Sweden and the elections here are under PR in a parliamentary democracy, the Swedish constitution provides rules regarding who has the right to try to form a government in the event of a Hung Parliament and the process has been quite a löong one this time around, that said Löven won first go and eventually got the coalition together to be PM for now, The result of the election was that Löven and his party won there is no question about that, another example is the Hung Parliaments of 2010 and 2017 in the UK, 2010 Cameron got first go, 2017 Theresa may got first go I see no problem in which bolding is appropriate, if the ongoing negotiations result in another "winner" that does not effect the "winner " that won first go at forming the Government.Similarly in the US there are the Bush 2 first election where Gore won? but Bush won constitutionally speaking, Same with Trump and the Electoral College of Popular vote debate, Trump won according to the constitution. Any subsequent changes would be covered in a later section in articles initial result and bolding is a constitutional matter of who is declared the winner even where it is subject to challenge, if there is no declaration then of course no bolding would be appropriate until an outcome is declared RogerGLewis (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@RogerGLewis: I was asking about the 2010 Swedish general election not the 2018 one. Number 57 17:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think what User:RogerGLewis wants to say is, even though the first party may not be the one who forms the government at the end, it is still the party who wins the election. Please correct me if I misread it. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
But how can a party that doesn't form a government after an election be the winner? Number 57 17:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
By getting the most votes. I'm not sure why you're equating "winning an election" with "forming a government". It seems to me that parliamentary elections are for electing MPs, not PMs. Levivich? ! 18:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of contesting an election is to form the government. If you don't do that, how can you have won? And even if you disagree, I hope you can at least see that who has "won" is a highly contestable concept. Therefore it's better to avoid the bolding altogether. Number 57 18:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I can think of four possibilities, and I'd get behind two of them. (1) The "winner" of a parliamentary election is the party that gets the most votes, irrespective of whether they go on to govern, which is my preference, meaning in 2010 Sweden, SAP is the "winner" and should be bolded (not the party name, but the other stuff, as in US Pres. elections); (2) the "winner" of a parliamentary election is a party that gets a majority of votes, and then presumably would go on to govern (I wouldn't object to this definition either, meaning in 2010 Sweden, there is no winner and nothing should be bolded), (3) the "winner" of a parliamentary election is any party that ends up being part of the governing coalition (I would disagree with this definition, which is post-hoc reasoning, among other problems), (4) the "winner" of a parliamentary election is a party that gets the most votes and goes on to be part of the governing coalition (I would object for same reasons as #3; "winner" should focus on the election, not on post-election events). I think, though, we could come to agreement by saying bold is the default, and don't bold in cases where it doesn't make sense (e.g., where a party only gets a plurality but not a majority of votes and doesn't end up in the governing coalition, as in Sweden 2010, in which case we just don't bold anything for those cases). I dare say in most elections, there is a clear winner, and it can be bolded, hence bold should be default, and not-bold should be the permitted exception. Levivich? ! 18:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to have bolding, we're going to need a clear definition of when and when not to use it, otherwise there'll be endless edit wars over bit. So far this discussion has been too much of a car crash to get any useful consensus out of it, so once the initial flurry of responses has been received, it might be worth listing some very clear options (based on the responses so far, this might be no bolding at all; bolding only for presidential elections; bolding for all elections only in cases where a majority of votes/seats is received, etc) and then !voting on that. Number 57 19:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it would be helpful to re-run the proposal with more options, and I'm not expert in assessing consensus, but it seems like both support and oppose !votes have good arguments (such that neither side should be discounted entirely), and in counting the !votes, I'm getting 17 supports and 5 opposes as of now. If the question is, "Should the Taiwan presidential election infobox be bolded," it seems to me at least that there is already consensus that the answer is yes. As to parliamentary elections, there is less-clear consensus, but I don't see that this thread asks about making a change to parliamentary elections. In other words, an outcome here could be to allow bolding on the Taiwanese presidential election (and all other two-party elections with a clear winner, and maybe multiparty elections, too if there is a clear winner), and not to have bolding on parliamentary elections, at least where there is no clear winner, as in 2010 Sweden. But maybe a new discussion with more options would be helpful. Levivich? ! 19:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This seems a good approach to me, Levivich. Impru20talk 21:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support bolding of winner's name and party name in all cases. I think this will help to convey who won to low-information readers, which is the most important audience for templates imo. I'm neutral about bolding anything else, but I do think that in this case we should develop a consistent standard across all infoboxes. Only including bolding when the winner is ambiguous would needlessly introduce an element of subjectivity and would probably confuse future editors unaware of this RFC. Orser67 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Orser67: Party names cannot be bolded (I think I'm going to scream if someone says this again). And how would you define "winner" in an election like 2010 Swedish general election? Number 57 17:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I can't claim to be an expert on non-U.S. elections, but merely from reading that particular article's lead it seems pretty clear to me that the Moderate Party "won" that election because their leader continued to serve as Prime Minister. I can't see why that same principle wouldn't extend to other parliamentary elections. Orser67 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
To me, "winner" = the party that won the most seats, in 2010 Sweden, it would be SAP. That they didn't go on to be part of the government doesn't mean they lost the election. See my comment above. Levivich? ! 18:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
See my response above. Number 57 18:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Lmmnhn Yes the constitution will award the right to try and form a government, that is a matter of fact winning is the right to go first. Number 57 in the 2010 Swedish election The Alliance won the election and the then sitting PM got the chance to form the New Government under the constitution he, therefore, won the right to lead a newly formed government as he was able under the constitution to command a majority in the house even though being a minority government. Mrs May is presently in the same position in the UK as previously noted, She did though win the 2017 General Election. RogerGLewis (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@RogerGLewis: You still haven't answered the question about where the bolding should be in the 2010 infobox. Number 57 19:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
To my mind it's really a nomenclature issue that is at the heart of this. To me, the 2010 Swedish general election wasn't an election between eight parties, it was an election between two alliances: The Alliance and Red-Greens. The Alliance won with 49% of the vote and went on to form a government. That the Alliance is made up of several parties is, to me, really just a detail. By comparison, the US Democratic Party is made up of smaller, ideologically-diverse groups like Democratic Socialists of America and Blue Dog Democrats. If you call those groups "parties" and the Democratic Party an "alliance" (or coalition or whatever), it's basically the same as calling the Democratic Party the "party" and the other groups just "groups" or "caucuses" or whatever. From an encyclopedic, "big picture" point of view, I think we should list the 2010 Swedish election infobox by coalition, and note the parties making up the coalition, but basically instead of presenting it as an eight-way race, present it as a two-way race (Alliance v. Red-Green with one party that is neither), and then state that The Alliance won. To me, that is what is actually, factually, an accurate depiction of what happened, and the difference between "party" and "alliance" is really just nomenclature and the idiosyncrasies of different nations' laws. I don't know if I'm the only one that sees it this way though. Levivich? ! 19:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't really work though because the parties in the alliances still ran against each other. And where does it leave the Left Party? Oversimplification of the infobox simply to allow bolding should be a non-starter. Number 57 19:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree that changing infoboxes simply to allow bolding is a non-starter. What I'm saying is–and it's a broader point not really about bolding–the presentation of the information in the 2010 Sweden infobox is not the only way we could present that information, and it may not be the best way. To me, the infobox says that SAP won the election (they're the first ones listed (and Bondegezou's point above is correct, this is much easier to see with multi-party infoboxes), but you're saying SAP didn't win the election because they didn't end up in the governing coalition. I'm saying that all multi-party elections and all multi-party parliamentary systems really end up coalescing into two coalitions (this is polisci 101 isn't it?), sometimes three coalitions, such that multi-party systems end up being de facto two-party systems. If we're going to declare winners/losers of a parliamentary election based on who ends up in the governing coalition, then we should just describe the parliamentary elections as elections between two coalitions made up of multiple parties each and organize the infobox accordingly. As for the Sweden Democrats (I assume you meant them and not the Left Party, which was part of Red-Green?), they can be listed as a "third party", same as is done in the US with Republican/Democratic/Independent. I'm not saying we do this for the bolding issue, I'm saying we do this because it's a more accurate way to describe what happened in this election ("The Alliance beat Red-Green and went on to govern"), and if we were to describe it this way, then the bolding issue would resolve itself. In other words, the only reason this bolding issue is a problem is because we're treating multi-party, two-coalition systems by focusing on the multi-party aspect instead of the two-coalition aspect. Levivich? ! 19:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be polisci 101 with a heavy American bent on it, because it doesn't really work in most of the rest of the world – multi-party systems end up with a government, plus opposition parties that are often heavily divided and do not act as a bloc. And in many countries (probably most), coalitions are formed after elections rather than before it, so in no sense are the elections contested in blocs. Number 57 19:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
You've made these points that I agree with: coalitions are formed after elections rather than before it, the parties in the alliances still ran against each other [in the election], in no sense are the elections contested in blocs, and it doesn't make sense to organize the election infobox by coalition rather than by party. The conclusion this leads me to–and hopefully you as well–is that an election is one thing, and the subsequent formation of a government is something separate altogether (even though that is the goal for those standing for election). Hence, a party can win an election and not be in the governing coalition; that doesn't mean they didn't win the election, since "in no sense are the elections contested in blocs", and "coalitions are formed after elections rather than before it." The winner of the election is whomever got the most votes; whether they subsequently form a governing coalition isn't relevant to the question of whether they won or lost an election, because forming a governing coalition is something that happens after an election is over, by which time the "winner" would already be known. If it were any other way, we'd have the strange circumstance of not knowing who won an election even after counting all the votes, and having to essentially wait for a separate vote (e.g., a vote of no confidence by MPs) to determine who "won" a prior popular vote (the general election that elected the MPs in the first place). For the reasons, I don't understand the objection to bolding SAP on the 2010 Sweden general election infobox. In other words: How can someone win an election based on something that happens well after the voting is over, after the votes are all counted, and after the election results are certified? Levivich? ! 20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't agree with the statement that "the winner of the election is whomever got the most votes" because the purpose of an election is to form a government. Whoever gets to do that is the winner. Let's agree to disagree rather than keep posting walls of text. But I think this disagreement serves to highlight why bolding is a bad idea for parliamentary elections – the "winner" is clearly a debatable subject, so it's subjective/OR to determine who that is in too simplistic a manner. Number 57 20:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Number 57 here. What is the point in getting the most votes and seats in a legislative election if you can't form the government? Take the recent 2018 Andalusian regional election: the PSOE–A clearly obtained the most votes and seats, but 1) it did not form the government; 2) it was not even granted the chance to form a government, as the PP candidate won it at the first go; 3) it only got to elect a Second Vice Presidency in the Parliament, with the chamber's President and Vice President going to the third and second most voted parties in the election, respectively. What would bolding the PSOE–A in the infobox convey to readers? That it was "the winner" of the election, when the party's numbers actually resulted in them being literally ousted from everything up to stake in the government formation process? How did they "win"? Something similar happens with the 2017 Catalan regional election, and I've mentioned just two regional elections in Spain out of many national and sub-national examples elsewhere that could be brought. Automatic bolding for legislative elections is so out of place to be misleading, rather than helpful.
On the issue of "ruling coalitions", this is actually misleading for most countries as well, as it is more frequent than not for ruling coalitions to form only after the election, depending on the election numbers. Impru20talk 21:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
As I stated before, I think bolding is really just to highlight who win the most votes. It does not determine who is the next to form the government. As the bottom of the infobox also shows that it was the PP who formed the government after the 2018 Andalusian regional election, the bolding actually serves another function to show the party who wins the most votes not necessarily the party elected to the government, same rationale as the 2016 United States presidential election. Lmmnhn (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
In parliamentary elections, the parties are the contestants. However, parties cannot be bolded in the infobox. Number 57 09:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lmmnhn: Yes, but what is the point of highlighting the most voted party in a legislative election? It is granted no prize or gold medal or something that makes it as if needing a particular highlighting. Being the most voted party has no practical consequence in most systems. That's the point. What you say is to bold for the sake of bolding. Impru20talk 16:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support For all the people opposed to bolding as "unnecessary decoration" it may be wise to consider that not everyone who reads Wikipedia is a seasoned editor who sees everything with a trained eye. Some people read it casually and something like bolding might help their understanding. To us, maybe it doesn't necessarily add anything but can you really argue that it detracts from anything? Nevermore27 (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
But that's my concern: why should casual readers know what the bolding means, particularly if we get into to complex cases with different candidates/parties bolded for different parts of the infobox? If we're communicating information to the casual reader, it has to be obvious what we are communicating. If something has to be communicated, use words. For example, I remember the infobox used to say "first party", "second party" etc., didn't it? What happened to that? Bondegezou (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Number 57 @RogerGLewis: You still haven't answered the question about where the bolding should be in the 2010 infobox. Number 57 19:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC). Reinfeldt should be bolded as constitutionally speaking he won as his coalition could command a majority in Parliament as agreed with the Left Block who lost RogerGLewis (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nevermore27: So, your reasoning is that a casual reader would be unable to distinguish the party placed first in the infobox as the most voted one, but seemingly would automatically know what bolding is specifically meant to represent? Plus this links with my previous assertion that being the most voted party in a legislative election has no practical consequence in most systems. It is not granted any prize, gold medal or something that justifies highlighting it further than it already is by being placed first in the infobox. Further, the article's lead will already (typically) cover the government formation process and the party's election results in a much more efficient way that any bolding in the infobox would convey.
Basically, some people supporting the use of bolding take two facts as granted, which really aren't: 1) that being the most voted party makes such a party any more relevant than the rest just because it obtained more votes; and 2) that a casual reader would automatically know that such bolding means "being the most voted party", even if such a party did not end up forming the government. So yes, I stand by my claim that bolding the most voted party is "unnecessary decoration", because it is just that: a mere decoration that solves nothing new with respect to the infobox's already existing design. Impru20talk 16:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Impru20: I get that you have some weird bugaboo that means you have to reply to every message on this issue, but I made my point and my preference known and I'm going to leave it there. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nevermore27: I guess out some other people are indeed much more active here than myself in that regard. I had no ill intention, but hey, if you wish to dub as "weird bugaboo" my reply to one comment where you directly addressed me (as far as I'm able to check, no one other has used the "unnecessary decoration" expression in this discussion but me), then that's fine. If you don't want an answer, don't ask for it. Impru20talk 01:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't asking a question in my referencing of your language, so no answer was required. As to my actual question; I fail to see a way that bolding detracts from anything as opposed to just not adding anything, in which case bolding is harmless and should be allowed. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
That you fail to see it doesn't mean such arguments haven't been exposed. Nonetheless, you just ratify the perception that bolding doesn't add anything useful, and that its addition is only being sought for the sake of it because a particular group of people see it as nice, ignoring arguments against it. Impru20talk 23:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick closure?

  • I think from the heat and light of the discussion above that we should consider closing the issue as "No consensus". doktorb wordsdeeds 09:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    I know it's not a headcount but 18–5 is a 3:1 ratio, that suggests consensus to me? It seems there is broad support for "bold when appropriate" or "bold but allow exceptions", and the opposes seem to be based on the exceptions where bolding would not be appropriate, such as elections where there is no clear winner, e.g. a parliamentary election where the party with the most votes nevertheless ends up in the opposition. As applied, it seems there is consensus to bold the 2016 Taiwanese presidential election but not the 2010 Swedish parliamentary election. That's just my read of the discussion; others may see it differently. Levivich? ! 15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    Heat is not generally why we close things as no consensus. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added {{rfc}} with what I hope is a succinct and fair version of the question. This will invite others outside this discussion to participate. I also plan to go leave a comment at WT:MOS. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    I've removed the RfC as doing it this way will make this discussion even more of a car crash. The discussion needs restarting from scratch (a new section) rather than trying to reverse engineer a question onto a several-day old discussion with multiple participants.
    Also, the new question was nowhere near precise enough given the span of discussion. I suggest we break it down into two questions:
    1. For the infoboxes of single post elections (presidents, mayors etc, and bearing in mind that parties cannot be bolded), should bolding be:
      • Not used at all
      • Used only on the winning candidate's name
      • Used on the winning candidate's name and the highest totals of votes, electoral college votes etc for any candidate
    2. For the infoboxs of legislative elections (and bearing in mind that parties cannot be bolded), should bolding be:
      • Not used at all
      • Used only when a party wins a majority of seats, in which case its votes and seat figures are bolded
      • Used only when a party wins a majority of seats, in which case only its leader be bolded
      • Used only when a party wins a majority of seats, in which case the leader, votes and seats are bolded
      • Used to highlight the votes/seats received by the party with the highest number, even if that party does not form the government; if there is one party with most votes and another with most seats, the highest respective figures.
      • Used to highlight the votes/seats received by the party with the highest number only if that party does form the government.
      • Used to highlight the votes/seats received by all parties that join the government formed after the election
    There are many more combinations for legislative election around omitting bolding for party leaders, or restrict it only to them (the latter seems to have been what S-1-5-7 was suggesting), but it would make the list too long (possibly illustrating why bolding is a poor idea). Number 57 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with Levivich that the weight of views so far is for some bolding (although I personally remain opposed). But I also agree with Number 57 that we do need to pin down what precisely is being proposed. Nor is there any rush (WP:NODEADLINE). Happy to go with an RfC using Number 57's list if it's not too much trouble. Bondegezou (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    Seems reasonable to me; I'm just generally concerned when I see "let's stop discussing with no consensus" when editors external to the locus of the issue haven't been invited to participate. --Izno (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the majority of the participants have decided for the presidential election, the name of the winners and the votes and vote percentage should be bolded as it is the current practice and how it was originally proposed. As for the legislative election, bolding is still favoured by most participants, but for how bold it, the consensus were not as clear as the presidential election. I would propose to bold the most seats win, most votes and the highest vote percentage. Should we hold a vote on this? Lmmnhn (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • So you would rather present one option for parliamentary election bolding (highest votes, % and seats only), rather than a range of options? I guess it would be simpler to have a yes/no. If so, then we should have a yes/no option for both presidential and parliamentary elections for the sake of clarity of what exactly people are voting on, as even for presidential elections there is some potential variance when the runner-up receives more public votes (e.g. the presidential infobox options would be (1) No bolding (2) Bolding of the winning candidate's name and highest totals for votes, percentage and electoral college votes). Number 57 13:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The rationale of my suggestion is exactly to make it easier for holding a vote as it would be a yes/no question on a particular proposal at this stage. It is far more simpler than your proposal of having more than seven options of which most of them are not so different from each other. As for the presidential election, the discussion is pretty clear that how the bolding should work as it was stated in the original question and has also been in use in the 2016 US presidential election per se. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, so how about an RfC with the wording:
  1. Should bolding be used in infoboxes of presidential/mayoral elections? The bolding would apply only to the winning candidate's name and the highest number of votes, percentages and electoral college votes received. Please sign below your preferred choice.
  • Yes
    • Editor 1 sign here
  • No
    • Editor 1 sign here
  1. Should bolding be used in infoboxes of parliamentary elections? The bolding would apply only to the highest number of votes, percentage and seats. Please sign below your preferred choice.
  • Yes
    • Editor 1 sign here
  • No
    • Editor 1 sign here
Number 57 16:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Number 57, I like these questions better than the previous round because they're simpler, but I have to ask whether an RfC is really necessary. Is there a widespread problem or inconsistency in the articles currently? For example, bolding seems to be used without any problem in all US election articles; I'm not sure if there is a larger problem in other countries' election articles. The way this looks to me is: there was a dispute between two editors about the 2016 Taiwan presidential election article, and the response here has been an overwhelming "yes, bold it". You raise good points about articles like the 2010 Swedish elections, but I don't see anyone suggesting it needs to be changed. It seems to me that the issues that were brought here have been resolved, and there is no larger issue requiring an RfC. I note that a number of editors have spent a good amount of time here already; do we really need to ask more editors to spend more time on this, or can we bold 2016 Taiwan, leave 2010 Sweden un-bolded, and call it a day? Levivich? ! 17:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is inconsistency, even within a set of articles on a country. I have >5,000 election articles on my watchlist and I've seen bolding being added to some articles a few times a year, usually by IPs. Whilst this is the first time an editor has refused to acknowledge the previous discussion's conclusion, it would be useful to have a definitive answer one way or another so that we can have consistency (and hopefully no more hotheadedness). Unfortunately I can see this dispute spreading beyond its original boundaries if it's not conclusively dealt with, or another hotheaded editor popping up in the future. Ultimately I don't think asking people to simply say yes or no to two simple propositions is really that onerous a task. Number 57 18:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
At this point, I think this is becoming like a WP:SLOP situation, and most specially if any RfC is going to be limited to a Yes/No response from editors. This discussion shows there's a wide range of opinions on whether to bold and what to bold and how, and it also shows that bolding may work differently depending on the type of election or even on the kind of election. It may possibly work for US elections, less for legislative elections, what about presidential two-round elections...? Etc. Further, would this mean that we'd have to re-format all articles (and we're talking about thousands of articles) just to see if their infoboxes are bolded one or the other way, for basically no practical gain? Maybe the issue should be left for those situations where bolding may actually constitute an issue, instead of creating a mega-issue from a rather singular incident in one article. Impru20talk 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it is wise not to bundle everything into one big giant question. If we want to ever reach a consensus we need to break it down option by option the discussion has shown pretty clear that the majority of the users is in favour of bolding. For the presidential election is pretty obvious - the current practice as the US presidential election is the one we can agree on, and therefore I think it is okay if we draw a conclusion now. As for the legislative election, we can hold a vote on one option and we can have a clear yes/no result on this and if the majority disagrees with we can then adjust our question on the issue or find compromise on it. Lmmnhn (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the discussion has given a clear outcome to delineate a position on what exactly should be bolded, especially when some of those in support of blanket bolding have suggested bolding the party when it's not possible. I don't see the problem with putting forward a formal RfC with a very clear outline on what would be bolded for both types of elections, and re-inviting everyone back for a simple !vote one way or the other. Number 57 11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the final vote must acknowledge several times that the issue is complicated and that there are unresolved issues only points out how pointless it is to force a generic decision for all kinds of infoboxes for one kind of election or the other, and for all countries. I've voted disagree because of how this issue has been handled, but at this point I'm more leaning at WP:AINT and to resolve the issue for those situations where it actually exists (i.e. just a minor percentage of the total). Impru20talk 14:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Final voting

As the discussion went on, the issue is being made complicated and bundled with some other unresolved issues. In order to make a final closure, I have no other choice but to invite all the participants to make a final vote on the issue. For the presidential election, I think the question can be simpler:

For the legislative election, things are more complicated as there are different ways to bold. Based on the discussion and the last proposal by User:Number 57, it is the best way that I can come up with to ask the question:

  • 2. Do you agree that bolding should be used when this infobox is used for parliamentary elections, where the bolding would apply only to the highest number of votes, percentage and seats?

Please all the participants to review the discussion above and put your name below the two questions. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Lmmnhn: The first question is objectionable; many FPTP elections end up with no party anywhere near a majority of seats and the largest party not being involved in government. If should be restricted to only presidential elections as per the discussion in the section above. The second question should be about parliamentary votes of all kinds. Please could you amend as soon as possible, otherwise we'll end up with another mess. Thanks. Number 57 14:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by it regarding the first question but I have amended the questions if that concerns you. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay I think I have noticed the problem and I have changed it accordingly. Thanks for your notice. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Your rewording has resolved my concerns. I've made a slight tweak just in case it is taken as referring to {{Infobox legislative election}}. Thanks, Number 57 15:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I am abstaining as neither question is actually clear enough to cast a vote. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It's clearly stated what elements of the infobox would be bolded for the two main types of election. What is unclear? Number 57 15:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@RogerGLewis: It is basically just the current bolding practice on the US and UK election infoboxes. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Q1: Presidential Q2: Parliamentary
If Green tickY Agree would become 2016 United States presidential election would become 2017 United Kingdom general election
If Red XN Disagree would become 2016 Taiwan presidential election would become 2016 Spanish general election
@RogerGLewis: for your reference. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lmmnhn and Lmmnhn: Thanks for that table it still does not help for instance why is Theresa May not bolded in the example, she formed a minority government in 2017 and has been in power since by that measure she won the right to have first go, the same applies to the Swedish election in 2018 , take venezuelan elections last year too, Maduro won not Juan Guaidó,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Venezuelan_presidential_election happily that seems all in order? RogerGLewis (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"

NO CONSENSUS
There is no consensus on how vacant seats and "seat changes" should be interpreted for the seats_before1 and seat_change1 parameters. Editors declined to express a general opinion that applies to all elections. As a result, local consensus determines how the parameters should be calculated for each election article. — Newslinger talk 06:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

From the template documentation:

seats_before1 ... The seat count before the election, labeled 'current seats' if the election is yet to take place.

seat_change1 ... The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election.

Questions:

  1. Does a vacant seat count as a "seat before" for a party? What if it is in a district that is considered safe? What if RSes generally count a vacant seat as a "party's seat"?
  2. Should "seat change" be calculated from "last election" or "seats before"?
  3. Should "the rules" be the same for all articles, or should there be exceptions for certain elections (based on nation, or type, etc.)? One size fits all?

Example 1: Party A has 100 members in "last election." Two retire, leaving 98 "seats before." In the election, the two seats are filled by Party A candidates, leaving 100 "seats after." Is Party A's "seat change" +2 (from "seats before") or 0 (from "last election")?

Example 2: "Last election" is Party A 100, Party B 100. Two As retire, leaving 98 A / 100 B. In a special election to fill one of those vacancies, Party B wins, "flipping the seat," leaving 98 A / 101 B as "seats before." On Election Day, Party A wins 99 seats, Party B wins 101 seats ("seats after"). Is Party A's "seat change" +1 (99 "seats after" - 98 "seats before") or -1 (100 "last election" - 99 "seats after")?

Example 3: "Last election" is 100 A / 100 B. Each party has two vacancies, leaving 98 A / 98 B. One of the A seats is won by a B candidate in a special election, leaving 98 A / 99 B "seats before." On Election Day, one of the B vacancies flips to A, leaving 100 A / 100 B "seats after." Is "seat change" +2 A, +1 B (98->100, 99->100, from "seats before"), meaning both parties made gains in the election, or is "seat change" 0 A, 0 B (100->100 for both from "last election")? Levivich (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll defer to others on this :) GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment: It seems to me there are only two choices: either vacant seats don't count as "seats before" and "seat change" is calculated from "last election" or vacant seats do count as "seats before" and "seat change" is calculated from "seats before." Otherwise, if you don't count vacant seats as "seats before" but nevertheless calculate "seat change" from "seats before," you end up with strange outcomes such a 100/100 "last election," 98/98 "seats before," and 99/101 "seats after," leading to a +1/+3 "seat change," meaning "both parties picked up seats," which doesn't make sense to me, especially if it's a two-party system.
...but, if we do count vacant seats as seats before, then "seats before" will almost always equal "last election," potentially rendering it redundant and useless. Which leads me to conclude that the only way it makes sense is to not count vacant seats as "seats before," and to calculate "seat change" from "last election." That doesn't appear to me to be the consensus, at least among the editors on the articles for the recent US elections. I'm not sure what the alternative might be. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking at 2018 United States Senate elections the two Independents are given their own section of the infobox even though they caucus with the Democrats. Wouldn't it be simplest to show "Vacant Seats" as the equivalent of a political party and show a "seats before" and "seats change" value there? Carter (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Interesting idea. Orser67 (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
But are elections across different countries truly comparable here? For example, in the United States, we've seen control of legislative chambers change in between elections (e.g. in mid-2001 when Jim Jeffords changed to the Democratic Party; Democrats retained that majority until the 2002 elections, which were held over a year later). My understanding is that this type of thing hasn't happened in the UK, but I could be wrong. Orser67 (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure about the UK (I don't really edit much in that sphere), but in Israel it's pretty common due to party splits, mass defections etc. However, we always still compare against the previous election. Number 57 22:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, this RfC is not formatted in a way that is likely to get a meaningful outcome as you've asked too many questions in one go. Number 57 09:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would love a uniform standard across time periods and even countries, but there are some tough decisions to make here. For example, if you look at 1912 and 1913 United States Senate elections, imo it's not completely obvious what "net gain" should be listed because there were so many different elections held at so many different dates. For post-1913 U.S. elections (when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, and by which point pretty much all congressional and state elections were held on the same date nationwide), I would favor basing seat change on something like this:
  • Include all flips in regularly-scheduled elections with an incumbent (obviously)
  • Include vacant seats that are won by a different party than the party that previously held the seat
  • Exclude vacant seats that are won by the party that previously held the seat
  • Include flips in special elections from fall/late winter of that year
  • Exclude flips in special elections if, say, a party picks up a seat in a November 2018 election that only fills a term for ~3 months, but doesn't pick up the seat for the next Congress (this scenario nearly happened this year in with Susan Wild and Marty Nothstein).

I believe this would best match reader expectations and how the two parties approach the elections. But I'm open to suggestions. Orser67 (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Compare to last election, but allow exceptions. The vast majority of election reporting and analysis (including academic psephology) I see, internationally, compares election results to the previous election, notwithstanding any by-elections (a.k.a. special elections), vacancies, defections or party splits in between. Notable complications can be explained in footnotes to a table or in surrounding text (e.g. 2009_European_Parliament_election_(United_Kingdom)#Results). That said, elections around the world and across history can have all sorts of different complications and, on occasion, there may be times were reliable sources tend to adopt a different approach and we should follow them. We should always endeavour to make clear to the reader what comparison we are making using appropriate labelling, titles, and any additional text as needed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Examples: here's an analysis of the 2015 UK general election with all changes to the 2010 result, ignoring seats that changed hands in by-elections in between: [3]. Here's an academic piece on the 2015 Greek general elections, again results compared to previous elections ignoring events in between: [4]. (Our Wikipedia article has a table showing some of those intermediate changes at Greek_legislative_election,_January_2015#Outgoing_parliament.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It depends. For party-list-based elections - often the result from the last election is appropriate (ignoring defections and the like along the way, if they are of a minor nature - though if they are non-minor (e.g. party split) - usually one would use the pre-election snapshot). For personal based elections - e.g. the US senate or congress often the snapshot prior to the election is more appropriate. e.g. for the 2018 senate elections in the US, most NEWSORGs used 51 seats as the prior amount (e.g. for net gain) - and not 52 per 2016 United States Senate elections - taking into account the seat change in 2017 United States Senate special election in Alabama. I think this is also generally done so in the US for special appointments (though it might vary depending on how close to the election these were). Truly vacant seats probably depend on the exact circumstances and country.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The added complication that I think comes into play with the Senate is that we are not dealing with all-up elections. It's always iterative, some seats only being elected each time. That leads one to focus more on a seats before approach. I think it could be that rather than the party-list versus personal-based elections: UK elections are personal based under FPTP, but comparisons are always done to the previous election. I'm happy with a default of comparing to the last election, but with exceptions where RS do other things, as with the Senate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be uniform for all articles. Seats that changed hands in special/by elections since the last regular election are displayed as being held by the party holding them on the morning of the election. If the seat is vacant, it should be displayed as being held by the party that last held the seat. As I find, that is what is currently being used on most articles. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading through the above, I note numerous examples for countries around the world, both in RS and in current Wikipedia practice, which compare to the previous election. However, there is one exception. Every comment above favouring a seats-before comparison has been about the US Senate. Precisely why the US Senate jumps out is not clear (I suggest it is notable that the US Senate is elected in parts rather than all-up -- I think it is the only legislative body in a G20 country to do that), but it's clearly a different case. This persuades me that we cannot impose a uniform solution: i.e, we can do most elections comparing against the previous election, but the Senate has to be treated differently. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Admin comment I've come here from the WP:ANRFC listing, but I don't think this is a discussion that can be easily reduced to a simple formal closing statement beyond "no consensus", which wouldn't be very useful as it isn't even clear what there ins't a consensus about. I'll leave the request open for now, but your best bet might be to start again with a discussion about whether a single standard for all elections is possible and/or desirable and work forwards from there. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_election/Archive_6&oldid=1138665575"