User talk:Number 57/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Re: October 1891 Chilean presidential election

Can you clarify what specifically you mean by "vote figures for the elector stage, or the invalid votes or electorate at the elector stage"? If the only candidate was Montt and he won unanimously, then shouldn't 255 be the final "vote figure" and "electorate"? Thanks! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 17:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Re "vote figures for the elector stage", it is a two-stage election and the totals from the first stage are missing (see e.g. 1876 Chilean presidential election, which has some of them).
Re "invalid votes or electorate at the elector stage" I mean the fact that some electors may have submitted invalid votes and the total number of electors is not given. For example, there could have been 300 electors, with 255 voting for Montt, 15 casting invalid votes and the remaining 30 not voting; the 1876 election has a total of 307 electors, but only 293 cast valid votes. Number 57 18:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Roger that, thank you for the clarification! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 18:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Norway Debate

Hello, Number 57. You are currently top of the recently active admins list and so I wondered if you might be willing to look at a dispute which has developed on the subject of auto-archiving. Any action you choose to take will be fine by me but, in the main, I would like some advice about how to handle such issues going forward. I don't see the point of taking it to ANI yet as a free-for-all might ensue and I'm not at all sure about dispute resolution works here. If you are unable to assist, could you please recommend another admin? Thanks for your time. NGS Shakin' All Over 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RE: English football updater

Cheers, I did think of doing it. I did take a look at it and thought against editing it in fear of messing it all up. I think Brimsdown will be in step 7 next season, which hasn't been announced. I'm pretty sure they're groundsharing with Wormley Rovers next season, so they'll be continuing at some level. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 00:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Number 57

I like how you write on your page: "The main reason I edit Wikipedia is a belief that every person on the planet has the right to access the accumulated knowledge of humanity. Giving people access to this knowledge allows them to make informed decisions – one only has to look at how desperate repressive countries like North Korea are to stop their citizens finding out the truth to see how important it is. The even sadder thing is that access to the facts from a neutral, reliable and trusted source is needed more than ever in the "free" world. Several years ago I wrote that the 2011 AV referendum in the UK was a prime example of deliberate misinformation by parties and the majority of the media. Sadly, since then things have got far worse, and not just in the UK." What you are writing is very true. The only thing is, that you engage in exactly the same behavior as the North Korean Government. Hypocritically, you keep an iron grip on any article that you feel like, deleting in minutes any edit in which you feel is wrong. Freedom of information means that all sides can tell their side, not just you. Have a good day and think about this for a minute or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.234.64.44 (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

New non-league clubs

That should now be an article done for every new club to come into step 6 or above. There's clubs like Hamworthy Recreation F.C that need a tidy up, but that's a task for another day for now. NouveauSarfas (Talk page) 16:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@NouveauSarfas: Great work! I am waiting for the step 7 allocations (I don't think they are out yet?) and playoffs to be finished before doing the updater. Cheers, Number 57 11:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Red Links

Hi There.

When the links are Red on a page, that means there is no Wikipedia page for them. It is practice to not have the links be dead, but rather have them not link to anything. If they deserve their own page, then it should be created. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

1865 Danish Folketing election

Hi Number 57. Please take a look at 1865 Danish Folketing election which you created. I have placed the Expert needed template on the article. Best regards, --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

I am letting you know that I propose deletion Jewish locality you created, because this does not exist. All the settlements listed there are community settlements, Local council (Israel), or other types of organized settlements.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I put it up for deletion now. You are wrong about the second reference. The 2012 PDF only includes regional council settlements, not all settlement, so it only includes the smaller settlements to begin with. This PDF also classifies all not-obvious cases are either majority Jewish (יישוב יהודי) or non-Jewish (יישוב לא-יהודי). It doesn't classify moshavim because that's obvious, but every entry there that isn't obvious has Jewish or non-Jewish marked, it is not specific for smaller settlements, the CBS in some publications also does this for larger city-size settlements like non-Jewish Nazareth or Jewish Bat Yam. This is not a government type.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
If you read Hebrew, then the intro to יישובים בישראל- קובצי יישובים, 2020-2003 has a detailed explanation of CBS methodology:
The religion of the settlement is on page 2 and beginning of 3, clause 5: "דת היישוב / יישובים יהודיים ויישובים לא יהודיים היישובים נחלקים ל"יישובים יהודיים" - וליישובים לא יהודיים בהתאם לרוב האוכלוסייה ביישוב. בדרך כלל יש ביישובים רוב מוחלט ליהודים או לערבים."
The "settlement type" or "צורת יישוב", which is not based on religion or ethicity except for Bedouin tribe areas outside settlements, is on pages 5 to 7 in clause 5. The way the CBS classifies settlements is different from the way they are classified by law, or formal government type, they say so in the beginning: "צורת יישוב צורת היישוב נקבעה, ככל האפשר, לפי המצב בפועל ולפי ההגדרות שלהלן. אין - בקביעה זו כדי להשליך על מעמדו של יישוב על פי דין.".חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jewish localities

A tag has been placed on Category:Jewish localities indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

2008 Dominican Republic presidential election

Again, Number 57, we discussed this issue several times already, we got nowhere, you always ignored me and even blatantly mocked me, don't talk about respect when you don't respect me in the first place.--Oli (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

And as I expected from you, you ignored the message I left you here, on your discussion page, but I don't care, with this you just completely proved me right. --Oli (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't respond to the above because there didn't seem to be any point. What did you expect me to say? With regards to election infobox photos, the generally accepted practice is to use photos closest to the time of the election as possible. Number 57 16:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

>I didn't respond to the above because there didn't seem to be any point. What did you expect me to say?

Oh right, because my posts never make sense, so yours do make sense? Thanks for proving me right, you did it.

>With regards to election infobox photos, the generally accepted practice is to use photos closest to the time of the election as possible.

Of course I do, champ, whatever you say, Your Majesty.--Oli (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Amendments to article on "1958 French constitutional referendum"

Hi

I am writing to ask you to look at what I wrote in the Talk page of this article, and reply in some way so that we can make progress on this.

Using this way of sending you a message is the only one I could find, but you may well know of better ways.

Redhill54 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Channel 9 (Israeli TV channel)

Yes hi, I’ve been alerted to the fact that against naming convention guidelines, you reverted my move under false pretenses, and now, for everyone’s sake, I’m asking you to move it back to Channel 9 (Israeli TV channel). “Unnecessary DAB” is unequivocally false and I would appreciate it if you followed the rules you impose on others. Your move was reverted, and you moved it back anyway, despite your very “advice” to me. CreecregofLife (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You moved the article, I reverted it. You therefore are expected to follow the WP:RM procedure, not attempt to move it again without discussion. The new title is pointlessly long and there is no naming convention guidelines that requires the longer name; the naming convention in question says that "Articles about channels should use (radio channel) or (TV channel)", but there is no disambiguation along that line required here; there is no Channel 9 radio in Israel. There was a similar RM for Channel 1 (Israel) a couple of years ago, which resulted in no move for the same reason. Number 57 10:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Haim Cohen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Haim Cohen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Mccapra, Haim Cohen was a redirect that just got hijacked by a new editor. I've restored the original redirect target. Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you I need to be more alert to these shenanigans. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Maneaba ni Maungatabu

This House of Assembly counts only 45 MPs since the constitutional reform of 2016, as the ex officio Attorney General [1] was replaced by a Minister of Justice and he is no longer member of the Parliament since. You can find all details in [2] (but the site doesn’t work well). Arorae (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

1905 Norwegian union dissolution referendum

Hello Number 57.

I noticed that you reverted me entirely on 1905 Norwegian union dissolution referendum with the summary claiming that it "seems" irrelevant. Why do you think this? This was the last time in history to date that two Nordic European countries and peoples were united and not even present-day establishments bond them together (except if you are including the United Nations). I feel the article is best presented when it reflects this important point. Veldig Viktig (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Because the bits about EU or NATO were not relevant to the two countries being in a union; being part of the EU or NATO is not the same thing as a personal union between the two countries. Cheers, Number 57 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Mmmm. Well NATO perhaps not, but EU I'd say yes. It is a union however we look at it. At the very top of the tree there is the Commission/Parliament/Council which transcend one another to ensure the continuation of European values. For instance, Latvia would not be allowed now to ban same sex activity, and much as they would like it, Hungary cannot deny the non-binary gender either. If they do, they get expelled from the EU and as a result, they lose their funds and their economies will collapse just as they did when they were Russia-controlled. Anyhow, not to digress, I just wish to have it said that this was the last time they were in union together. We don't have to say EU or NATO. Veldig Viktig (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It's still not the same thing. Number 57 21:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
No you're right, it's something in its own right. Anyhow, I shouldn't have mentioned NATO & EU. I've edited the section in question so please feel free to take a look and tweak it if you have to. Veldig Viktig (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Why state a negative? Because Wikipedia is packed to the brim with negatives! Anyhow, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Regards. Veldig Viktig (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2024 in Sri Lanka

A tag has been placed on Category:2024 in Sri Lanka indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Feature request for Module:Election results

Hi, i am from bnwiki. I have two request for Module:Election results. If possible,

1. please move all the label/headings to top, something like Module:Age. It will help during translation for other wiki.

2. please add fmt() to all parameters which might contain numbers. For enwiki, it won't change anything but for bnwiki, it will convert the number from en to bn (unfortunetly we cant input Bengali digit there as module don't understand Bengali digit. In this way the end result will be shown in Bengali digit).

Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently i did this. As i don't understand lua, i get worried that i might break something + every time we update the module, we need to do this again on bnwiki. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@আফতাবুজ্জামান: I have to confess that I do not understand lua very well and have been learning how to edit that template on a trial and error basis. Frietjes is the main brains behind it.
Regarding the use of fmt, in some cases (like for args.turnout) it is not used because the data being entered is not standardised (it may or may not have decimals). Number 57 13:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I put a version with the "mtext" block in Module:Election results/sandbox. as for the fmt, we could make a second wrapper which does nothing on this wp, but does the fmt for the bn wiki, and call it say "numberfmt" or something. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Frietjes, Yes, "numberfmt" or something similar to Module:Age#L-49 would be great. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
okay, I added something to Module:Election results/sandbox. it does nothing if translate_numbers = false, so it won't impact the output here. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 Sri Lankan presidential election

Hello Number 57.

According to the votes total , this election is seems a indirect election.

Should we remove it from the Template:Sri Lankan elections and make Template:Sri Lankan presidential elections instead ? Comrade John (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I believe there was also an indirect one in 1993 after Ranasinghe Premadasa died. Cheers, Number 57 11:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
So making of new template is certain.-- Comrade John (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Go for it. Number 57 17:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, the template is made, 1993 one need somebody create it.--Comrade John (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Belgian Election of 1864

Hello Number 57, I was hoping you might remember the source for the fact that the Belgian election of 1864 was a snap election caused by the death of Cumont? Thanks! 82.39.239.169 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This information was added by SPQRobin, who may be able to help. Number 57 16:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! 82.39.239.169 (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Please help restore information that was wrongfully deleted off of the Perfect Pitch Page

Hi! Requesting your help, please! I would like to report an error in the deletion of information on a page. Jungkook (the Main Vocalist of BTS) has been confirmed to have absolute pitch and this information was deleted from “the list of people with absolute pitch” page. I can provide multiple articles and sources that confirm this information. There is even a video of Jungkook proving this ability on camera. Can you please help to restore the correct information? I would greatly appreciate your help! Thank you! Sabrina Salam (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Azimio La Umoja

Hope you are well. Could you help me add the party color for the linked article. The colour code is 011FB1. I've discovered it automatically appears in infoboxes when title of page is used. And if possible retitle the name to Azimio la Umoja. "la" is a preposition and shouldn't be in uppercase. Thank you.154.70.0.223 (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The? Solomon Islands

dear User, as I am not a native speaker of English but as a father of a child born in Honiara, I was always quite surprised that most of the people, especially in legal acts (my son is a lawyer) never writes « the Solomon Islands » since 1978. In British times, it was always « the British Solomon Islands » with the article and since he disappeared but in some sources. So how do you explain that, but the willingness to suppress this article since independence as you can notice already in the act of independence (a British act), here. Do not worry I always write the Netherlands and the United States of America. But « The Guardian » doesn’t [3]. Who is right and thanks for listening (I know that we have some few disagreements in the past but please I do appreciate your contributions). Arorae (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone mentioned in a discussion at some point in the past that referring to the islands as "the Solomon Islands" was seen as a colonial thing so the government officially dropped "the" from the name. Personally I am not so convinced, it's just common usage to refer to island groups with an apparently plural name as the Comoros/the Maldives/the Seychelles etc. Cheers, Number 57 18:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian is the common usage. It writes the Seychelles but Solomon Islands. Without the. As the British act did in 1978. Sorry to confirm that your generalised theory doesn’t apply to Solomon Islands, as the common usage of good newspapers. Arorae (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

About Image size

What is the use of the image size parameter if we can not use it. Image sizes are important where the image sizes are uneven and it looks very bad as there in 2009 Indian general election page. Ku423winz1 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The images are the same size – the infobox has a default setting of 150x150px, and this is what I see. I think the problem is with your browser, as in this version, the picture of Singh is more than twice the size of the one of Advani. If you are seeing them the same size in that version, the issue is at your end. Number 57 15:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes there is default resolution but why there is a parameter to change it? Because to change it according to the page. And the version you are showing, the width and length of the images are same. Actually it looks very bad when an image exceeds another, it looks very odd and makes the page to appear badly. Ku423winz1 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you have some browser issues. Number 57 19:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Which browser do you use? Ku423winz1 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

On seat change

Hi! I just quickly wanted to ask your opinion regarding seat changes in election infoboxes. In a normal election (Say: 2019 United Kingdom general election, for example) a party wins 365 seats (Increase 48) compared to the 317 won in the previous election (See Conservatives on table). However, let's say that in the time between both elections, 3 parliamentarians switched to a different party. Should the seat change shown remain at (Increase 48) (indicating change since previous election) or be changed to (Increase 45) (indicating net change)? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Seat change should always be compared to the previous election – this is what the infobox guidance says. Cheers, Number 57 07:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics § 2023 Nigerian general election. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Not correct

There's nothing promotional about the edit. On the Finnish page you have by 2023; what does that mean? It's vague.Extraordinary2 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

You haven't answered either of the statements and questions. Why do you feel qualified to say someone is promoting something? If by promotion you mean drawing attention to coverage that is one thing. I have nothing to do with promoting a documentary. As I told the other person books, movies, anything, you could make weak arguments that anything is promotional. For someone who knows as much as you seem to you're lacking in this area of understanding. Extraordinary2 (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe both of you are wrong and no one else is interested in this topic. I'll put it on the talk page.Extraordinary2 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Why do you feel you can assess things and come to conclusions? What do you know of the election?Extraordinary2 (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian annexation referendums

Hello, Number 57. Being an expert in the field of articles about elections, your help would be greatly appreciated at 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine annexation referendums, especially in expanding the article and adding more citations. —Sundostund (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Calling N57 an expert is questionable. The user doesn't understand a topic I addressed at all. Extraordinary2 (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cleveland County Council elections

A tag has been placed on Category:Cleveland County Council elections indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election

It has been a week. Can you at least attempt to discuss? Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've given my viewpoint repeatedly. I am not going to change my mind and agree with you no matter how much you badger me. Please just WP:DROPTHESTICK. Number 57 20:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
You have not given any viewpoint since May. I have told you overlap problem for months now and directly addressed each example last week. This had been constant: I say why the name should change, you do not refute that but argue for a DABCONCEPT page, I tell you the overlap issues with such a page, and then you ghost the discussion for months. At least attempt to make your case in good faith before leaving for the fifth or sixth time. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I've twice stated my views this month. I don't believe the overlap is an issue. Please stop badgering me. Number 57 21:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Your belief doesn't become fact, you have to prove it and I've asked you for months the potential differences between the pages, you finally addressed that last week but have refused to engage with the response explaining why your examples would still be redundant. Is basic interaction so difficult? Simply make your case. You can’t ghost discussion half a dozen times then cry about being asked to explain yourself. This isn't some fiefdom where everything must go your way without question. Watercheetah99 (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Learn to know how to change Party color

Hello Hope you are having a good day. I wanted to know that how I can change party color as there are many political parties of Pakistan whose color are almost similar which is some times difficult for us to differentiate. I searched from wikipedia but could not found any guide. Please help. Regards Saad Ali Khan Pakistan Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Death of Morea

Hello. Sevese Morea died at the age of 38, according to the source already given in the body of the text. Well, there [4] it says that Morea died in August 1982, aged 38 and was given a state funeral on August 25. Thank you.--Lemur12 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Belper Town

Hi, please can you stop undoing edits on Belper Town FC page as it is updated to show recent seasons and there is no reason to remove this. Belpertownfc (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election

I want to make it clear that you could just have a conversation to explain your point instead of just ghosting, there are open questions on several different pages that you have refused to answer for months or weeks. While I care because the name is wrong and I cannot figure out your game here, it is clear that you are steadfast in your content dispute so you should be able to articulate your case. I keep on bringing this up because you never have. So just respond: if you have an issue with the name, what is your issue? Since you have an issue with the content, why won't you defend your case? Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained my view on this matter:
  • The general election article should cover the presidential and parliamentary elections on 25 February.
  • The elections article should be a DABCONCEPT article linking to all elections in the country during the year
I am getting thoroughly sick of the accusations of ghosting, as I have stated my view on multiple occasions. Wikipedia is a voluntary project that people do during their spare time. There is no requirement for me to answer your endless questioning about this – these are my views and you have not persuaded me otherwise. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK and accept that I disagree with you. Number 57 16:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
They aren't "accusations" when they've happened six or seven times over months. Go back to every single discussion on this topic, it's ends with me either asking you a question or rebutting your tired "DABCONCEPT" point and then you refuse to respond. I told you the overlap issue half a dozen times for months and you finally chose to respond a few weeks ago before immediately ghosting again, you still haven't responded to the paragraphs where I directly inform you of the issues of each of your examples. It is embarrassingly clear that you do not think others have a right to know why you must impose your view onto articles or you would've opened a discussion/responded in the open discussions months ago.
Go open a content discussion, leave the name issue out of it and actually argue your case. All of this seems bizarrely punitive, it's as if you didn't like how I edited a page you feel like you own because it's elections-related and because of that you've decided to stop any name change. The name change has little to do with the page split and as you said "the content is the issue." But if you actually believed that the page should be split, you would've opened a page split discussion months ago instead of only remembering your view to argue against a name change that has nothing to do with it. Go open a page split discussion if you care. Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
You think you're rebutting it, I don't; that's the issue here. I am not 'imposing' my view on article; I gave a view in a discussion and that discussion ended with no consensus because you could not persuade other editors or the closer that you had the stronger argument. If anyone is attempting to impose their view here, it's the editor repeatedly trying to circumvent the outcome of a discussion that didn't go their way by begging the closing admin, making inappropriate requests at WP:RM/T and so on. Number 57 17:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
You left. There has not been one discussion on the name change because you pivoted to content and then kept on leaving. How do you think this is normal? Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Since you are going to ghost this discussion like you have every other time, let's run through a summary of each discussion.
  • First requested move - April
    • Discussion 1
      • I request the move
      • You suggest a split
      • I tell you about the overlap issue
      • No response from you
    • Discussion 2
      • You suggest a split
      • I tell you about the overlap issue again
      • You say it would be a WP:DABCONCEPT-type page like two unlike elections
      • I ask you a question on how it wouldn't be redundant
      • You ghost
  • Second requested move - June
    • Discussion 1
      • I request the move
      • You suggest a split
      • I tell you about the overlap issue again
      • You get upset that I added "non-national-level elections" to the page, even though non-national-level elections have always been on the most broad Nigerian election pages
      • I tell you about the overlap issue again
      • You ghost
      • I ask you to respond
      • You ghost
    • Discussion 2
      • I note my issues with the name
      • You again suggest a split then lecture on appropriateness
      • I tell you about the overlap issue again and again note that the issue is the name
      • You outright say you are ghosting then again suggest a WP:DABCONCEPT-type page
      • I tell you for the sixth time about the overlap issue with such a page and show you the differences between your examples and the page
      • You ghost
      • I ask you to respond
      • You ghost
      • I ask why one side can refuse to respond to keep the status quo
      • You ghost
  • WikiProject Politics discussion - August
    • Discussion 1
      • I note my issues with the name
      • You again suggest a split and try to justify ghosting
      • I tell you for the tenth time about the overlap issue and note the ghosting
      • You again suggest a WP:DABCONCEPT-type page
      • I go through every single example you table and add on more to explain the overlap issue for the eleventh time
      • You ghost
  • Your talk page - August
    • Discussion 1
      • I ask you to respond to the overlap issue paragraph
      • You say "I am not going to change my mind" and tell me to go away
      • I tell you the issue with a WP:DABCONCEPT-type page
      • You say you dont think it's an issue
      • You tell that your belief isnt fact and ask you to respond
      • You ghost
  • Usernamekiran talk page - August
      • I ask for the name to be changed
      • You oppose based on the WP:Politics content discussion that you ghosted
      • I point out that the content discussion has nothing to do with the name issue
      • You ghost
And here we are nine ghostings and you still haven't either formally proposed a split or explained your issue with the name change. Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
As you've clearly demonstrated, I've stated my opinion in at least seven separate discussions. Your refusal to accept my view on the matter is the problem here. Number 57 18:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Why are you unable to even respond to the most basic of questions about your view? Why have you been refused to state even one issue that would be on the "elections" page but not another page? Why have you never opened a page split discussion? Why do you only remember your view to argue against a name change that has nothing to do with it? Many times I have said that I am open to a page split discussion but you have refused to open one. Many times I have noted the issue with the name, why have you refused to engage in discussion? Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I have repeatedly stated that all elections during the year should be listed/linked on the "elections" page. After my experience of interacting with you, I have no desire to start a split discussion and deal with your bludgeoning. And I have clearly not refused to engage in discussion. Number 57 19:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
So exactly what is now on the current page. That is the definition of redundant. I will repeat the obvious overlap: "Your description of a prospective "Nigerian general election" page shows the exact overlap issue I have tried to communicate to you. The presidential candidates will be on the "elections" page (if something as basic as the candidates isn't on the "elections" page, it serves no purpose), opinion polls will be on the individual pages (what poll will cover all three February elections? if polls are released, they will likely be on just the presidential race and such would just be on that page), and the results tables will be on the individual pages (the "elections" pages will have results in the infobox while the full tables would definitely be in the individual pages). Nothing you bring forward will not be on a different page; the only thing that could possibly cover all three elections but might not go on the "elections" page would be a conduct incident specific to the February election but that would just go in the conduct sections of each individual page or (more likely) the subdivisional election pages. To address other examples: debates will go on individual pages (there aren't joint debates, no need to put them on a "general election" page), a broad intro summary will go on the "elections" page (any "general election" page intro summary would just be the "elections" page intro summary without a sentence or two), issues will be on individual pages (each election has different issues), primaries will go on individual pages (each election has its own primaries), and background will go on individual pages (each election has a background section based on the constituency and local context)." This has been communicated to you literally a dozen times. You have not responded once.
So you refuse to open a page split discussion, but you also oppose a name change because the page isn't split - pick one. Plus every time you are told that you only have a content dispute, you just ignore it. This seems punitive, just because the page doesn't look exactly like you made it does not mean that you have to hold the name hostage. You must understand that stalling with the hope that the other side will give up isn't how disputes are resolved. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cantonal Council of Zürich elections

A tag has been placed on Category:Cantonal Council of Zürich elections indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

198mkj.6754

The are doing an edit war on National Council of Slovakia in a similar way as Igec133 did on Opinion polling for the next Slovak parliamentary election (manual reverts without summary and they are similarly active on many slovak articles simultaneously) and his account first became active on 7th August (about 2 weeks after 178.143.96.6 & Jurajec6)

but i am not an expert on that topic could you look after it? Braganza (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Braganza: I have the same suspicions as you. You can raise a sockpuppet investigation by following this link and filling in the details:[5] Cheers, Number 57 15:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
178.143.106.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a few edits again today. Vacant0 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Eni Aluko

Hello Number 57, I have recently edited Eniola Aluko's Wiki page to ensure there is more factual basis and context to the page. It is clear you have a negative agenda to ensure those facts are not on the page. There are public sources to every change that has been made and to that extent you have to stop blocking the changes being made. This is a public page and the public have a legal right to factual balance and context. Okcezinne93 (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Problem with an article

Hello sorry if i am bothering i require some advice could send me a message when and i you can — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs) 2022-04-14T23:36:50 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election

Your split idea has been opposed, either argue your case or drop it. Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It's also been supported; I have already argued it ad infinitum and I am not going to "drop it". My views are still the same about what should happen. Number 57 17:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
You continue to pretend as if no one deserves an explanation for your positions. You propose a split, three people oppose it while one backs it - normal people would respond to the opponents to argue your case but you just ghost again and again. Then when the results of your decision to ghost emerge - a new RM as suggested by one of the opponents you never responded to - you become angrier and angrier that others aren't just letting you have your way. Where does this entitlement come from? Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Again, I have repeatedly explained my position – there are only so many ways to say the same thing. I'm not the one getting angrier and angrier here – you are the one continuing to flog this dead horse because you aren't getting your way with the page move requests – three RMs, an RfC, moaning on the RM closers' talk pages etc etc... Number 57 19:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Three oppositions, no response. Then a new RM is tabled, as suggested by one of the opponents you never responded to, and it's flogging a dead horse to actually engage with others. Respond to the arguments for once. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Nobody cares that you disagree, there are disagreements on this site all the time - the issue is the fact that you never engage with anything. Three people tell you it's redundant and you just walk away. It took months for you to even provide examples of what would be on pages and you still haven't responded to the rebuttal to those examples. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
You obviously care very deeply as you have been relentlessly badgering me about this. I have made my opposition to the move and support for a split clear. Now please stop posting on my talk page. Number 57 19:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
And you again refuse to engage in basic discussion. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Now please respond to the opponents. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election

You cannot just continue to disregard the thoughts of others, you actually need to respond to the points of those opposed to you on the page. This has gone on too long. Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement for me to return to a discussion to respond to !votes that differ to mine, particularly when the comments are not addressed to me. You do not seem to understand how discussions work. Again, please stop leaving comments on my talk page. Number 57 22:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
If you predicate your argument on points that have been contested and then refuse to respond, how are you discussing in good faith? Again, this has gone on too long. Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FIFA Country codes

Template:FIFA Country codes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Turnout

Hi! Why are you removing the turnouts in Bosnian elections? Even the one for the 2022 election was sourced a bit further down in the article and you removed that as well? Bakir123 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Because the turnout was being put at the top of the infobox for the election as a whole, when in fact in most cases it was the figure for one aspect of the election (the presidential election, House election etc). If you want it in the infobox, it has to go in the right section (see, for example, 2022 Kenyan general election, where the turnout for the presidential election is in the presidential section). Additionally, in some cases the turnout was not sourced anywhere in the article (as for some articles, there is no registered voters figure). Number 57 21:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
For what I know, the turnout for at least since the 2002 general election was for the election as a whole, both for the Presidency and Parliament. You can't go to the election and vote for a Presidency member, but not for a member of Parliament. You are correct for the sources, which is why I will be putting them in. Bakir123 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Clearly you can vote for one and not the other, as the total number of votes cast is different for the presidency and House. The source you used for the 1996 election does not appear to be accurate, as the turnout given is several points higher than either the presidency or legislative election. Cheers, Number 57 22:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Once again, for at least the last 20 years or so, when a turnout is released for an election, it includes both the Presidency and House. Maybe immediatly after the war in the mid to late 1990s that wasn't the case, but it is now and has been for quite some time. So I'm politely asking you, when I do add back the turnouts for the other elections, with an included source of course, please don't move that percentage down in the Presidency or House part of the infobox. Take care. Bakir123 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting Edits for no reason

Sorry why are you now reverting my edits on other Wikipedia pages? I thought you mainly covered Chippenham. Can you please not start to revert my other edits. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I am reverting the changes that appear on my watchlist, which is quite a number of non-league clubs. What you have done to the Chippenhan article is completely inappropriate. Please restore the stable version as soon as possible. Number 57 23:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

“Inappropriate” what world are you living on? Seriously I don’t get you at all. Why do you care so much about how an honours page is formatted when I was just tying to make them look more professional or more like how big clubs format them? Honestly the things some people worry about… User ChrisTheDude saw how other big clubs format them an believed that the way you like it was worse as it does not say the tier, provide a link to that season, or separate the league titles from cups making it easier for the reader to view or scan over. How can providing more valuable information possibly not be an improvement?? Jesus. I literally have no idea how you believe it looked better before, can you pease stop needlessly reverting small edits that you yourself doesn’t really like, just so you can get the “non vandalism Barnstar”. I’m trying to make it look more polished, you’re treating it as if I’m full on vandalising the pages. I genuinely love non league clubs and just wanted to use a consist format for all of them. Sorry, but what gives you the God-given right to delete everything I changed when there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it? If is vandalism 100% but just trying to making it clearer and providing more information is not vandalism. Also, simply saying “not an improvement” is entirely subjective when providing the season it was played and the tier is an improvement, as there is more relevant information. The “stable version” you’re treating as if I’m hacking into sit… honestly lost for words at how hard to communicate to you it’s been. Joseph1891 (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If you think it's appropriate to do this to a Wikipedia article, then you shouldn't be editing. I don't believe Chris has done anything of the sort – he has thanked me for reverting your edits. You are not making the articles look more polished, you are making them more cluttered and harder to read. Please stop. Number 57 11:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

How do you go from talking about important matters such as politics, geography, and culture to caring that much about non league football clubs honours page’s? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t going to leave it like that Joseph1891 (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

How is it harder to read? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So I should believe that your format looks nicer than that used by Manchester and United and Liverpool. Joseph1891 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s like talking to a robot Joseph1891 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you were going to leave it like that, you should never have done it in the first place.
And it's harder to read because there is too much bold, too much blue (overlinking), too much unnecessary information, Western League honours are split etc. And I would consider toning down your language, or you'll be blocked again for personal attacks. Number 57 11:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for using that language, Can I get rid of the bold and remove some of the links? Joseph1891 (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Just put it back to the original format please. That gets rid of the unnecessary bold, links, numbering and splitting. Thanks, Number 57 11:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I've put it back to its original format Joseph1891 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Number 57 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
That's alright, sorry for being an idiot Joseph1891 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Oxford Handbook

I think a case is to be made on whether Grotz's chapter on Turkmenistan is remotely reliable despite whatever "help" he had secured from the embassy in Germany. Page 480 claims "Izatullo Khaeev" to have been the first Prime Minister of Turkmenistan before being replaced by "Akbar Mirozev"; both of them apparently served alongside Niyazov. Nice story except this happened in Tajikistan under the presidentship of Rahmon Nabiyev. How did this glaring error fly past peer review? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of User:Αθλητικά

Hope you are well. This is a notification that I made a comment in this report to support your case. If you believe this is a helpful addition, you can mention so in the report for congrugation. -SteliosGR (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Brazilian general election

On 31 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Brazilian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. El_C 04:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian general election

Can you finally go make your page? Watercheetah99 (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, will give it a go tomorrow. Cheers, Number 57 22:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

"2013–15 Ukrainian crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#2013–15 Ukrainian crisis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gliwrit (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Referendum(s)

Ha, it seems we started articles about the same time, I used plural, 2022 Slovenian referendums. I leave you to decide which title to keep, you may use anything from the other one and merge. Tone 17:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 Nigerian elections

Are you going to make the new page? Watercheetah99 (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Number 57 15:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Order of election results

Dear Number 57,

could you point me to any Wikipedia Style policy that confirms your point? (I could not find any)

To me alphabetical sorting seems more logical to order election results. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 19:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello there. Your common sense apparently differs from mine. I can not see anything absurd in ordering them alphabetically. Alphabetical order also has the advantage of ensuring continuity, if a political system changes, e.g. parliamentary to presidential one. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 00:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Standardising

Just to let you know, I'm standardising the results section of parties in South Korea, as most weren't uniform. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You're not standardising them (I have hundreds of political party articles on my watchlist and I've never seen that format before). What I was doing was bringing them in line with most other party articles. Also, your blind reverts undid several other improvements to the articles. Please don't simply hit undo without properly looking at what you're doing. Number 57 12:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I was standardising them to what they are like on the main current parties in SK, and they are a bit like that on the UK political pages too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
May I ask, who set the standard for the tables? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it was one particular editor. The format has evolved over the years. Number 57 15:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
In all honesty, I thought before joining Wikipedia that a standard would be set for each country, of course developed over the years. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of things that aren't standardised unfortunately, which can be quite annoying... Number 57 15:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Has there ever been an attempt to? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. Number 57 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Where would one go to propose such a thing as standardisation? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics would seem to be the obvious place. Number 57 16:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hey I had a question. Is it possible for someone to write out a proposal why someone should be banned, and then want to have the community vote if they agree or disagree with the proposal? If that does exist, where would one go about posting that? Best, Zeke (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Usually these proposals are made at WP:ANI. Cheers, Number 57 23:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

1960 South Korean parliamentary election citation

Could you provide me the citation for the election, as I was going by the results on the Korean and Japanese Wikipedia. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It's in the Nohlen book, of which I have a copy. The book mentions that the results were annulled in several constituencies and re-runs took place. Perhaps the different figures are based on the re-runs. Number 57 23:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Either way, I've corrected the results on the Wikipedia's of Japanese and Korean :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding singular or plural phrasing in the lead paragraphs of the applicable articles. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Next Singaporean general election and every Singaporean general election article dating back to the year 1948".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Bcmh (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ideology Infobox parametre order

Is my understanding right that the ideologies with the most references go at the top, while ones with the least go at the bottom? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

TBH, this isn't really my area of speciality. However, I would advise against what you did at National Association. Either link directly to the South Korean conservatism article, or exclude it. I have never seen that being done. Cheers, Number 57 15:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Conservatism (South Korea/n)" vs. Conservatism"

The reason why I use the former is because it is used in a similar fashion to other pages, such as the Cons. Party UK and Lib. Party AU. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Japanese Political Pages

Do you usually edit those pages? If not, do you know who does? The reason being is that I'd like to change the standard for the electoral result tables to reflect that of what I've been doing with the South Korean parties. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I've edited a few of them, but not that many. I don't know if there are any editors that are really active in that topic area. Number 57 13:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I see. That doesn't really surprise me about how many edit the topic, as it took awhile for the list of member elected to be completed for the 2017 election. Would you consider the amount of candidates important in a results table? Personally, I don't, but the info could be, if not already, be added to the election pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Assuming we are talking about the tables on party articles, potentially for the constituency elections, but not the PR ones. Not for the main election results tables on election articles. Number 57 15:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
We are :) Understood :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Infobox election"

Do you know why it sometimes abbreviates parties? For example, the 1996 South Korean election with ULD. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is designed to use party shortnames. These are defined in (e.g.) Module:Political party/U. The shortname depends on how the party is best known in shortened form – some parties are known by their abbreviations and some by a shortened verison of their name (e.g. in the UK we have "Labour" for the Labour Party and "SNP" for the Scottish National Party); it doesn't have to be consistently one or the other. Number 57 14:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for informing me :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't we have a proper discussion on non-League history?

Number57, we've been debating the structure of non-League history before 1979 for so long, (probably for over 2 months now.) Can't we simply have a civilised, formal discussion on the matter, in which we share points and how we came to certain conclusions. I don't think the way we've both been going about this issue is constructive, and I really do include myself when I say that. It'd be great to hear your points properly. Joseph1891 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why this is still an issue – it is very clear that there were no formal tiers before 1979. Pretty much everyone involved in the discussion at WT:FOOTY has tried to point this out, but you simply refuse to accept it. Why is it so important to you that there were tiers? Number 57 15:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, it's good to hear from you. I know, you keep saying " it's very clear that there were no formal tiers before 1979" - but you haven't provided any evidence to back up this claim.
I understand that automatic promotion/relegation had not been established, but there was still some sought of pyramid as relegation and promotion to and from divisions within non-league still existed, Also the act of election was a means for a club to move to a higher branch of football, that in itself implies that levels existed. But I don't see how that meant that no tiers at all existed before 1979.
All I'm asking for is a source stating exactly what you have stated.
For me, the reason it's really important to state the tiers, is that I believe a lot of readers/ and modern-day football fans will be unaware of how much of a greater competition the southern league used to be, and how it's been demoted throughout it's history, almost forgotten.
For example: If readers see that Chelmsford City F.C.: won "The Southern League" in 1968, they may click on the link to the Southern Football League Article, and assume that the club won the seventh tier, as it is now. which simply isn't accurate. Winning the southern league was far more prestigious before 1979 then after it. On top of that: there are sources stating that the southern league was the second best competition in England, and that it was the greatest non-league division before 1979. surely, it's fair to state that the southern league acted, but was not formally recognised as a given tier below the football league.
If you want me to provide the sources for my claim I can, all I ask is that you do the same. Joseph1891 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative, so please stop asking me to. And again, we all know the Southern League was one of the best leagues below the Football League, but that does not mean it was tier five, because there was no formal non-League pyramid at the time. Number 57 17:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
But saying: "You can't prove a negative, so please stop asking me to"... just isn't really a good enough reason for me to believe you, I'm sorry.. Yes many do know that the southern league was one of the best leagues below the football league.. however many still don't. I think the best way to convey that it was, is to state the southern league acted/was essentially the tier below the football league, which it was, whilst still noting that a formal division name, or tier, e.g. (Division 5) was not given yet. Joseph1891 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The issue is, no-one agrees with you. Please stop flogging this dead horse and get one with something more productive. Number 57 18:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I mean, clearly other editors do agree with me:
Ebbsfleet United
Cheltenham Town
Macclesfield Town
Morecambe
Gloucester City
Fleetwood Town
List of non-League clubs in the Fifth Round of the FA Cup since 1925–26 Joseph1891 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
No-one who has engaged in the discussion agrees with you. There are errors all over Wikipedia. Number 57 18:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Some of the sources:
[6] "Before the formation of the Alliance Premier Football League in 1979 the best non-league divisions in England were the Northern Premier League and Southern League."
[7] "the league was composed entirely of former members of the (professional) Southern League and Northern Premier League."
[8] "The 1969 season saw a hint of change when the formation of the Northern Premier League to equal the status of the long-established Southern League was the first step of many which led to the creation of the non-League `Pyramid`."
[9] "the Southern League's influence was reduced, although it remained the second strongest competition in England."
[10] "The Southern League operated as a 2-division competition throughout the next few years, with the Premier Division claiming, with some justification, to be the top football section outside the Football League."
[11] "It was the foremost non-League competition and players could often earn more playing part-time than being with League clubs." Joseph1891 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
None of those sources confirm there was a formal pyramid. They just confirm what I said above about the league bring one of the best outside the FL. Number 57 17:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but If there are “errors all over Wikipedia” then, sorry, how do I know that your statement isn’t one of them? the only person that truly agreed with you was Redrose64. Just hard to tell when you haven’t provided any source for your statement. Joseph1891 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Nippon Ishin no Kai

I've implemented a style for the political parties in Japan on the Nippon Ishin no Kai page. What do you think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with the +/– columns for the proportional/constituency seats, but otherwise it looks logical. Cheers, Number 57 20:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Japanese elections

Do you have any sources on elections during the Meiji era? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately not; I only have the Nohlen book, which goes back as far as the 1946 elections. Number 57 20:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible for you to rename "Liberal Party (Japan, 1890)" to "Jiyūtō"? Or do I need to apply for the change to happen? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The problem is, other parties were also called Jiyūtō (e.g. Liberal Party (Japan, 1881), Liberal Party (Japan, 1903), Liberal Party (Japan, 1945)). The 1890 party doesn't seem to be the primary topic. Number 57 20:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Fair point. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

When you have time, could you add these parties to the party colour modules please :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Done! Number 57 21:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I forgot, there are these parties too:

Both DPs of 1991 and 1995 need to be blue, as it says they are customary on their pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the modules (ULD already existed although the colour was a different shade of green to the one in the article). Could you clarify what changes you want to the DP colours - what hex code to use. Cheers, Number 57 22:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :) Both DP hex colours are #1644FF. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Done. Number 57 15:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Pre-2004 SK election PR votes

Were the PR votes ever published? As election pages prior to the 2004 SK election only have the FTPTP votes, according to the KO Wikipedia. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Voters only had one vote prior to 2004; the PR seats were allocated based on the total of votes cast in the constituencies. Number 57 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I've found a way to illustrate the change in seats for these type of elections. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I've tweaked it slightly – not sure we needed +/– for every set of seats? Cheers, Number 57 20:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
It's to illustrate the difference in seats for FPTP and PR. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Another one is this party. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The tweak still kept the split in seats between the FPTP and PR, it just deleted the changes from election-to-election for each set of seats, which seems completely unnecessary. Also, there is no heading to clarify to readers that those figures are seats. Please don't just hit the undo button. Thanks, Number 57 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Would you like me to standardise the election since 2004? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Number 57 22:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The style on the 2020 legislative page in the infobox differs from previous years. I personally prefer the 2020 standard compared to previous years. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Didn't realise this, but could you fill out the votes for the 2016 constituency seats in the results table on the page? They seem to be missing, with the election turnout using the PR turnout. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean fill them in? Number 57 15:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
At the bottom of the table. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Done. Number 57 15:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football biography

Hi mate, I saw your change at Template:Infobox football biography and I was wondering if "Managerial career" might be a better phrase than "Management career". What we've got is fine, I just feel like this is a better alternative. – PeeJay 23:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Fine by me if you want to change it :) Number 57 23:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I actually don't have the rights needed to make the edit, but I'm glad you're on board. – PeeJay 01:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@PeeJay: Done. Cheers, Number 57 15:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @PeeJay: and Number 57. This makes sense as "Managerial career" is also what we use as the standard section heading at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

2008 SK leg. elect.

Should the Democratic Labor Party be in the infobox on the page, despite not achieving 5% threshold in both Const. and PR votes, but only PR? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The 5% rule only applies to presidential/mayoral elections, not parliamentary ones. In general, every party that won seats should be in the infobox. TBH, I think {{Infobox legislative election}} is more suitable – I don't think {{Infobox election}} is appropriate for parliamentary elections, as it places too much focus on party leaders (by having large photos of them) over parties. Number 57 22:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
That is a good point. How come it hasn't been rolled out across Wikipedia? Is it because there isn't the sheer number of users that are needed for it? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
It was developed a fair amount of time after the original election infobox. Plus some users are resistant to change. But by all means implement it on the Korean articles and I will support the change if anyone objects. It's a far more effective summary, as it covers the key details (party name/leader/seats won/seat change) in a far more compact format. At the moment I am focussing on sorting out results tables, but will do infoboxes at some point. Cheers, Number 57 22:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1957 Western Samoan general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Nelson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Party Color Module Change

Can you change Kenseito to Kenseitō please :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 19:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

New Ecological and Social People's Union Hex Colour Change

Could you change the hex colour for "New Ecological and Social People's Union" to #642497 please :) The reason being is that the website uses purple, not the shade of red. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 21:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be rude Joseph1891 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Democratic Justice Party

Could you change the colour of the party to #0A84E9 please :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 12:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

1939 Dutch East Indies Volksraad election

Hi, I take your point about consistency of party names, but the Great Indonesia Party is almost always referred to as 'Parindra' in English language sources - it was a major pre-war party. Is there any wiggle room? I'm less fussed about the Indonesian Islamic Party (which doesn't even have an article yet, but watch this space) and the Indonesian Union Party, which was only a short-lived political vehicle. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 16:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Davidelit: If it is almost always referred to as Parindra in English sources, the article should be renamed per WP:COMMONNAME (like Mapai rather than Workers' Party of Eretz Yisrael). There's no compulsion for us to use the ENglish name if the non-English name is more commonly used in English sources (hence why we have Likud and Venstre rather than "Consolidation" or "Left"). Cheers, Number 57 16:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you. Davidelit (Talk) 16:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

South Korean President Portraits

Is there a website that has images of them? The reason I'm asking is that there doesn't seem to be one of Moon Jae-in. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No idea I'm afraid. Worth checking whether South Korean law determines that official pictures are public domain images (I think official MP photos in the UK are, for example). Cheers, Number 57 17:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Right :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Minjoo/Democratic Party of Korea Hex Colour

Could you add it to the table of the respective letter in the module and change its colour to #00A0E2 please :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the current colour is correct - it was the #00A0E2 before it was rebranded (this is listed in the infobox). Number 57 13:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Right. The reason why I said the colour is because of its prominence on the website, but they do have two different colours of blue. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
In addition, I've created a topic on changing the colour of the LDP in Japan on its talk page, as the colour and logo match the party's English website, which is dated, but still has updates from the party on it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Redirects

But by not using redirects, it creates more work. If the point of redirects is that they can't be used were appropriate, then there is no point for them. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't create more work. Redirects have lots of purposes, but this isn't one of them. Number 57 17:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Well I beg to differ. If you can't use a redirect for when it was called something at a certain time, then there is no having it. As your edits have illustrated, it creates more work than is needed, when the result is the same as using a redirect. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
In addition, please direct me to where it says redirects cannot be used in such a manner. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no policy saying you cannot use them, but the lack of one is not an excuse to introduce them. Number 57 18:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Another thing that shouldn't surprise me. Fine, I'll stop using them, but is there a place to suggest that rules regarding redirects can be made? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Move to Next French presidential election

As I can't seem to do it, can you move it? It is not certain that an election will be held in 2027, so the name is inaccurate, and as an administrator you surely can help a user who doesn't know how to do it out by doing it yourself. Thanks. BastianMAT (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Done, but surely after a few years here you know not to do cut and paste moves? Number 57 19:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
My apologies. BastianMAT (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

LPD Colour and Logo Change

Could you comment on my proposal to change the colour and logo of the page please :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't really have a view tbh. I notice Japanese wiki still uses green for them. Number 57 17:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has bothered to update it. I saw a few months ago that someone updated the colour of the party here, but was reverted for reasons I can't remember. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Members of South Korean National Assembly

What are they called? MAs? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I've no idea TBH. I'd advise looking at some English language Korean news sites to see if there's a common way. I had a quick look at the Korean Herald, but they seem to use a variety of "Representative", "Lawmaker" etc. Number 57 22:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Right :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

2013 Paraguayan general election

First Reference: "You are being redirected..."

Does that make the link unreliable? (I can't read Spanish... or Guarani....)

DarklitShadow (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@DarklitShadow: The problem is, whatever software you're using to fill in these references, when it finds a missing page, it gives the title of the missing page, rather than the page that would have been there when the reference was added (e.g. here it inserts the title "You are being redirected..."). I don't know if you can see this when you are making the edits – if so, you want to check the web archive for the page as it was at the time (or just replace it with another one). Cheers, Number 57 12:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going be honest here: I'm really bad (atrocious is more like it) is more like it when it comes to HTML.
I tried using this as an example but it caused things to look worse... DarklitShadow (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Indonesian political parties templates

Hi. I see you merged the two Indonesian political party templates (Indonesian political parties and Former Indonesian political parties). To be honest, I preferred two separate templates. Firstly the combined template is rather large and unwieldy. Apart from being very large, it now needs two clicks to bring up the 'former' list, which is a bit of a pain for someone wanting to move between different pre-war or Sukarno era parties, for example. Secondly, it's slightly strange because the 'former' template is in rough chronological order from top to bottom, but now it's under the 'current' political parties template, which is rather incongruous. Finally, the two templates relate to two different topics: current politics/elections and political history, so I think the templates should be kept separate. I appreciate there is some overlap, but I believe there are enough Wikilinks within current parties that link them to any predecessor parties, so this will not be a problem. We have crossed paths a few times over the years and I respect the work you've done on elections in general, so I thought it would be discourteous simply to undo the merger, but can I ask you to consider this, or perhaps to undo then propose the merger so it can be discussed by other editors, particularly members of the Indonesia project. Happy New Year! Regards Davidelit (Talk) 14:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think having separate templates for extant and defunct parties is extremely unhelpful for readers, as it prevents navigation between them, and also requires a party to be deleted from one template and added to the other when it dissolves. Happy to have a wider discussion about it somewhere though. Number 57 14:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

1976 Egyptian elections

Hey, I saw you added some tweaks to my additions to your article. A few notes:

  • The names of the parties in the infobox are currently anachronistic, as those were not the names of the parties in 1976, and in fact they weren't even considered yet independent parties, only factions within the ruling party, as Egypt was still a single-party state at the time. I'd rather revert the names to what they previously were and link them to the articles of the modern parties.
  • I'm going to remove the links of the "Arab Socialist Organisation" to Egyptian Arab Socialist Party as I can find no evidence that these parties are in fact connected, excluding some claims on what look like dubious websites and pages. According to the references in the article itself, the original Arab Socialist Organisation quietly disappeared after the formation of the National Democratic Party. I may be better to link it instead to the National Democratic Party, as that party was the main successor of the centrist faction in these elections, but that may also be misleading.

Just making sure we're on the same page so we don't start correcting back and forth. Thanks in advance. Zofthej (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't change the names; I simply shortened them to fit on a single row (Arab Socialist Organisation to Arab Socialist, Liberal Socialist Organisation to Liberal Socialist etc). And the names are as per the source used. Number 57 14:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

UMNO Colour

Could you change the colour to #C00000 please :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition, can you update the party shading for the 2016 and 2020 People Parties in South Korea too please :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see they need creating. Could you do those please? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
They are already in Module:Political party/P. Number 57 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
No, it's the party shading templates that need creating. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean party shading? Where is this used? Number 57 12:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
For the election results by city/region on the 2016 leg. election. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
You should be able to create those yourself. They are not part of the (restricted) module. Number 57 12:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay. I'm surprised it isn't though. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Just looked, they do exist, but need renaming. This to People Party (South Korea, 2016), and this to People Party (South Korea, 2020). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
You should be able to do that using the move tab. Number 57 12:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but you can do it without leaving unnecessary redirects. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
When you get the move page, do you not get the option "Leave a redirect behind" (which you can untick)? Number 57 12:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
No. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Categories for National League (English football)

Hi, why are you making lots of edits like this? The clubs are no longer in the National League (English football), hence why I put them into Category:Former National League (English football) clubs and not into Category:National League (English football) clubs. Please revert your edits. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Because having a category for former clubs is pointless and unhelpful (as it means lots of recategorising at the end of every season). We don't have this split for other non-league leagues – see Category:Southern Football League clubs, Category:Northern Premier League clubs, Category:North West Counties Football League clubs etc. Number 57 19:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Why did you not message me first, or at least raise a thread at WT:FOOTY? The season-end recategorisation would not be a huge amount of work - ten in and ten out, twenty edits in all. Besides, we have this current/former setup for the EFL. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Because I thought it was just correcting an error that had been made because you were unaware of the categorisation convention and therefore didn't see a need to draw your attention to it unless it became an issue. The EFL seems to be an outlier (the Premier League also does not have a separate "former clubs" subcategory). Number 57 19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I've started WT:FOOTY#Categories for National League (English football). --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Parliamentary Diagrams

I didn't know you create them. It seems better than uploading an image :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, someone created a template for them recently. It's a bit of extra coding (and not something I've ever done personally), but the main benefit is to avoid the issue of incorrect colours being used by their creators. Number 57 20:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Right. I'm currently adding it to the latest South Korean leg. election :) The coding isn't that bad really, once you know what you're doing :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Number 57!

Happy New Year!

Number 57,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox election

Just to clarify When this template is in use, only constituency votes should be use, rather than both Const. and PR? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There aren't any rules, but generally I think it's better to use PR votes as they are more representative of national vote share. Number 57 16:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, why on earth are you making edits like this, removing a party that won 11 seats from the infobox, but keeping one that won ten. Number 57 16:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll revert them. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Israeli politicians' infobox

Why is the standard different compared to politicians in other countries? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Because there used to be a different infobox for Israel politicians ({{Infobox member of the Knesset}}). This was created because Israeli politicians regularly change party and have numerous ministerial roles (see e.g. Tzachi Hanegbi or Binyamin Ben-Eliezer), so it showed the information in a different way that allowed for more positions to be shown and in a more compact format. It was decided to merge that infobox into the existing {{Infobox officeholder}} but adding the functionality to display the information in the way it had been shown in the previous infobox. Number 57 17:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I see :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Honours sections

A consensus was reached for un-bolding honours sections on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Also, links to other leagues are required, as shown in both Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Seems like you're the only one who prefers the most basic format possible, with MOS:BOLD not respected. Joseph1891 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No, no consensus for anything was reached in that discussion, and bolding was only mentioned by a couple of editors. The excessive bolding issue referred to in an old discussion is from when both the first and second level bullets were bolded; in the examples we are talking about, only the first level bullets are bolded. But anyway, this was not the only change you were making, and I might not have reverted you had you only removed the bold – you also reattempted to to add tiers and split honours up like cups and leagues. Please stop trying to force changes into articles for which you have repeatedly failed to gain consensus. Number 57 18:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Why are you so against adding tiers for honours won after 1979? Actually I cant really be asked to argue... clearly you're as stubborn as they come, do what you want with the 300 clubs you've added to your watchlist. Joseph1891 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Party Abbreviations

Should party abbreviations be based on the native language or English? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally, they are in the native language, but this is generally only applied for parties in countries where the language is written in the Latin alphabet. Are you talking about for infoboxes? Number 57 20:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, just in general, i.e. party political modules and infoboxes. I was wondering about Korean and Japanese, that's if they do need changing, of course. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
For Korean and Japanese it would usually be a shortened version of the name of the article on English Wikipedia – if the article name is Korean, use Korean (e.g. Saenuri), if the article name is English, use English. Number 57 20:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixing Dates

I was wondering why my edits to the 2024 Lithuanian parliamentary election dates were reversed. I had changed them so that they were all consistent with each other? CoaxAndBotany (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see the reason to shorten the months, and also you shortened one of the month names in the prose of the article (I assume it was done via search and replace). Cheers, Number 57 23:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah terribly sorry! I had actually quite selfishly shortened them all as to make it easier to scrape the table via python to produce the graph! I understand if it's not allowed haha! Thanks for explaining! CoaxAndBotany (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Coalition Pages

Should the infobox on coalition pages have ideologies? I've seen a few pages in the past that don't have them and wondered if they need them, especially when there is usually a table further down the page that tells readers the ideologies of the parties that make the coalition. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion tbh. If all the parties share the same ideology I guess it's not a problem. However, ideologies in infoboxes do tend to get edit warred over and changed constantly, so perhaps it's not a great idea. Number 57 12:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Amir Ohana

He is the first openly homosexual, conservative and Jewish in his position. Who his husband is important because given the context of this progressive move forward is for man kind as a collective species is very essential to our evolution as a civilized species. Whether you like it or not Alon Hadad just made civil rights history and will go down as a brave hero to future generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderateasneeded (talk • contribs) 01:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Botswana political party colours

Hi, Number57 👋.

It's me again. I write to you to humbly request you to edit the political party modules for the following political parties:

Umbrella for Democratic Change •Hex-#244197

Alliance for Progressives •Abbreviation-AP •Hex-#662A92

Botswana Democratic Party •Hex-#E61E26

Botswana Patriotic Front •Abbreviation-BPF •Hex-#fece00

Real Alternative Party (Botswana) •Abbreviation-RAP •Hex-#76402b

Thank you so much. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry I got assistance from Elli. Thanks! Aficionado538 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Quett Masire

Hi, Number 57. The images in the Botswana elections aren't actually of Quett Masire himself as a result, I'll undo your changes. Thank you. Aficionado538 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aficionado538: Thanks for letting me know. This situation could have been avoided if you could have noted the reason for your changes in the edit summaries. I assume you have proposed File:Quett Masire 1984-05-19.jpg be renamed to prevent another misunderstanding occurring? Number 57 09:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries! And yes, I will make sure to note the reason for my changes next time. The renaming of the file would be much appreciated. Aficionado538 (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aficionado538: I was suggesting that you request the file be renamed. If you select the 'More' tab on Commons, an option is to move the file. You can then suggest an alternative name. Do you know who it actually is a photo of? Cheers, Number 57 20:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know who the subject is. Aficionado538 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Next Indian general election

Hi Number57, I have a question regarding Template:Infobox legislative election. Does it have a maximum limit? I tried to add Independents as party38= but it didn't show up in the Infobox of Next Indian general election. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it can be extended. Will do it later today. Number 57 10:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for response. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox legislative election

I noticed that you filled out the infobox on the next Sk election page. Thanks :) However, it doesn't show the seats that were won at the last election, just the current ones. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's how that infobox works. It doesn't show seats won at the last election. Number 57 23:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Then why are the parametres in the syntax below on the templates page? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The last_election parameter is used to calculate the seat change, when combined with the seats parameter and ongoing is set to no (or excluded). Number 57 23:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Have a look at 2021 Dutch general election to see how it works. Number 57 23:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I see :0 Thanks for informing me :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Parliamentary political groups

Are they allowed to be added to the "Political party" modules? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, can "Grand National Party (1997–2004)" be added to the "G" political party module, even though the party didn't change name, but did change to the sky blue in 2004 for eight years? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
In addition, can you update the Socialist Party in France's URL on Wikidata, as I can't due the semi-protected status of the page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The url appears to be correct (i.e. https://www.parti-socialiste.fr/)
Re the other two questions, yes, parliamentary groups can be added, as can former colours. Number 57 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikidata has it as "http://www.parti-socialiste.fr/". As for the other two, that's great! :) It means that GNP's two colour can be included now, and the parliamentary groups in France can now be added :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah ok, done. Number 57 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Quick question, do you know when the GNP changed to the sky blue logo? Was it before or after the leg. elections? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
No idea I'm afraid. Number 57 21:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a source alluding to whether or not DJP (Democratic Justice Party) used two colours? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I really don't know much about party colours. When I set them, I just copy what was in the infobox, or on a parliamentary diagram, or the main colour in their logo. Number 57 14:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) I'll remove it and on ko.wiki (maybe someone will hint at the colour when I remove it there). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Vacancy

Hi Number57, The "Vacant" entry in the Template:Infobox legislative election automatically redirects to Occupancy which is of unrelated context. The link needs to be changed to Casual vacancy. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@SharadSHRD7: I've raised the issue at Module talk:Political party. In the meantime, I would pipe the link as [[Casual vacancy|Vacant]]. Number 57 13:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Old Flag of the Constitutional Court of Korea

Could you upload the old file of the flag of the Constitutional Court of Korea please, as I'm having issues with WikiMedia. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean.... Number 57 18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If you look at the history of the image, you'll see the first image that was upload, before another was uploaded over it. That is an image of the flag before it change to what exists today. You'll see the emblem resembles this image. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. Looks like someone uploaded it, but was in the same category as the recent image :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Question

If you have time, can you please convert all the tables in pages in this category to election boxes? I've done a few already. Thanks! Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Thiscouldbeauser: Rather than use the awful election boxes templates, you can just use {{Election results}}, as it can be used for constituency results tables too – see for example its usage in 1998 South Korean local elections. Saves you the hassle of calculating percentages and avoids user error. Cheers, Number 57 01:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Cool, I'll have a look at that. Does that template have swings and "hold" or "gain"? Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it does. And for preference runoffs, you can use the second round votes parameter and set the first round/second round headings to 'First preferences' and 'Final preferences'. Number 57 01:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I'll definitely be using that from now on, calculating percentages just takes too much time. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

New Komeito Color

I've just seen a picture on Google Images of New Komeito as blue. Do you know where the yellow colour came from, before the pink replaced it? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about Japanese party colours. Number 57 20:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarifications

Why do you keep reverting my edits? What's your problem? Where did I add false information? Even about me correcting the information that if Lula is a candidate in 2026 in the Brazilian presidential elections, he will be a candidate for the fourth term and not for the second round. UFTV (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I am from Brazil, about Brazilian presidential elections, I know that Lula won the first term in 2002 and the second term in 2006. In 2022, Lula won the third term and if he is a candidate in 2026, he will really be running for the fourth term and not the second term. His successor, Dilma, won the first term in 2010 and the second term in 2014. I just added this information, there is no reason to reverse it, since it is true information. I'm sure you're not from Brazil. UFTV (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Because your edits are grammatically incorrect and not an improvement on the current wording. Where I'm from is irrelevant. Number 57 15:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is it incorrect to say that Lula is eligible for a fourth term in 2026? He has already won THREE presidential elections. About Bolsonaro, he really is eligible for the second term in 2026, because he won only ONE presidential election and was defeated when he ran for the second term. I just saw you're from the UK, you shouldn't even meddle in Brazilian affairs. UFTV (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

2019 Indian general election

@Number 57:: The exact number of seats won by UPA is unknown because of several assumptions and conflicting media reports: 91 [12], 92 [13], 96 [14]. That's why I think it's better not to mention alliance count in the Infobox. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Images Reversion

This image I uploaded keeps being reverted by a bot. It fits the criteria of non-free, as it's smaller than the source image from Amazon ja. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the non-free criteria – non-free images must be less than 100,000 pixels in size. The bot is working correctly. Number 57 20:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh... I see. I'll upload a new one then :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Stop reverting my edits. I'm already mad at you. Understand that "re-re-elected" can be used for someone who won a third term. It's like a soap opera, when it airs for the second time it's called a rerun, when it airs for the third time it's called a re-rerun. I'm tired of talking to you. UFTV (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposing a Category

Is there a place to propose a category on Wikimedia? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What category are you proposing? Number 57 15:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it's a category and sub-categories by continent and country. It's for official portraits of political leaders, as I've noticed a number of official portraits of leaders, such as a former president of Chile, South Korean leaders and a South Vietnamese president that don't have such categories. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't be an issue to create them. I assume this is on commons? Number 57 20:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
That is correct :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, I created a post on the talk page of the Italian parties. I don't know if you want to express your opinion, but since it involves tables, I thought you might be interested. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
To add, you don't need to constantly add "nowrap" to text in a table, when you could add it to "class". ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I never knew that. Number 57 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Opinion

Shouldn't the colour of a party in the infobox be the most current, not the one they are associated with? For example, I changed the colour of the LDP to the red it is now, but a user keeps reverting it back to green, even though they are no longer green. Another user called Vif12vf says that things that make up an ideology such as multiracialism and social justice should be in the ideology parametre in the infobox, even though they aren't ideologies. What is your opinion on this (pgs. in question are Pakatan Harapan and People's Justice Party)? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it depends. I remember a debate about the Austrian People's Party, which rebranded for the last couple of elections. You're probably better off asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics.
Re ideologies, I would say both of them are ideologies. However, this is a topic that causes a lot of debate. Personally I would be in favour of removing this parameter from infoboxes, as there is so much debate about what is an ideology, and also endless edit wars over individual parties' identified ideologies. Cheers, Number 57 10:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  1. Will do :)
  2. I don't think that they should be in the parametre, as they aren't ideologies. Anyway, I think keeping them would be a good idea, though only those with the most references.
  3. Also, what is your opinion on LDP's colour? I asked the user who reverted the changes to the colour of the party to add a reference that says the party hasn't changed colour, but refused to. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
After reading this, I'm inclined to agree with the other user that colours aren't really set, and I don't think this reference justifies the claim that LDP has used red since 2017 (it just mentions that they used it at that election, but also use different colours like blue). The fact that the English LDP website (which has been updated since 2017) still uses green is probably enough to justify us still using it. Number 57 11:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
But the party doesn't use that logo anymore that is used on the English site. If you look at Getty images, you'll see press conferences that used to use the green logo, but now use the black one. In addition, the Japanese site uses red and I haven't seen green being used since 2017 anywhere else, apart from the English site (but the graphics for website haven't been updated in a long time). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
In addition, the link says that the website that uses red is a website for the election, not the official website, which now uses red. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Positions In Election Tables

What do you think of the increase/decrease template being added to the positions a party is in an election, in terms of seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing as it could be interpreted at first glance as down six rather than 6th place (down from last election). Also, I still don't think you need the +/– figures for the constituency and proportional seats - only the overall totals. Number 57 16:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
That's understandable. The reason why I added the +/- is because PR members are elected, rather than earlier SK election where they were calculated by the number of votes per region, and due to this, there is no "+/-" for the likes of NKP in SK. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
in addition, there is a discussion about whether "Pro-Europeanism" should be removed from the ideology infobox parametre too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Namu Wiki

Is Namu Wiki a reliable source? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No Wiki is a reliable source. Number 57 12:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay. The reason being is that the 1967 Democratic Party seems to be a split from New Democratic Party, rather than the 1955 one, where you reverted my edit on the 1967 South Korean legislative election. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Fukui (which is a reliable source) says it's the same party. Number 57 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
So I wonder where this party comes from then? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
In addition, could you add the link to the source, so I could can take a look at it? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a book and isn't available online to my knowledge. Number 57 12:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that's ashame then. It even says the 1963 Democratic Party was a split from the 1955 one that merged with the 1963 People's Party too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
What's your opinion if these type of pages were created on Wikipedia? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, what about this. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  1. Sorry, forgot to respond to the above. I can't entirely tell what the first link is, but it looks like some kind of political terminology to describe something in South Korean politics? If so, I think it would be appropriate (see other examples in Category:Political terminology in South Korea and the rest of that category tree).
  2. The second would be a question of whether the organisation meets WP:GNG – are there multiple independent reliable sources covering it?
  3. More generally, I noticed you are making a lot of changes to South Korean political articles re their foundation/dissolution dates, colours etc, but never providing any sources. If you are getting this info from other wikis, please double check it is correct with a reliable source. I have seen you add incorrect information in some of the articles on my watchlist, which I have reverted, but given the volume of your edits elsewhere, I am a little concerned by what you are adding to Wikipedia. This (where you incorrectly removed one of the parties from the results table, which changed the totals and percentages of all the other parties) was particularly concerning... Number 57 12:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  1. It describes political factions by leaders. Unlike, for example the LDP in Japan, leaders have political groupings that follow them. Lazt explained a bit how factions work in DPK. Former pres. Dae-jung had his own faction for over twenty years, according to Namu, until its dissolution.
  2. In terms of sources, I'll have to look for them.
  3. The reason why I removed KNP is because according to Korean Wikipedia it dissolved earlier, but it looks like that is less reliable that Namu, so I won't be using info from there again. I'm aligning the colours that are used on Namu, as not every party has the rights colours. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Re #3, that is not a justification for removing the party from the results table, as it has a serious impact. You can see the results table is sourced; what you should do is check that source. I'm seriously concerned that you don't realise the impact of what you are doing... And why do you think Namu is reliable? It's another wiki... Number 57 13:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Simply because it has more info than the Korean Wikipedia, but you are right. In addition, I found the Korean Wikipedia equivalent of the Namu link about the DJ faction, which has references. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sydney elections

Hi,

I was just wondering, if you have time, could you please expand the article 2016 Sydney City Council election?

Thanks! Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2026 in Peru

A tag has been placed on Category:2026 in Peru indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Igec133

Hey, I have several Slovak articles on my watchlist and I've noticed several IPs contributing to the same area as Igec133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used to (Slovak politics). You can see the IPs here 178.143.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is evident that this is Igec133 because 178.143.96.6 and 178.143.107.171, who are also under this range, were confirmed as Igec's sockpuppets at SPI. Should these post-November 2022 IPs be submitted to SPI too? Vacant0 (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

PupillusLibertatis (talk · contribs) might be the same guy. His sandbox was edited by Special:Contributions/178.143.64.0/18 on January 16. Same pattern as with FiliusLibertatis (talk · contribs) who is a confirmed sock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Pretty much all the 178.143 IPs editing Slovakian political articles are clearly Igec. I guess that might be too big a range to block, so I wonder whether we should just put a batch of articles under extended confirmed protection for a while until he gives up? Number 57 20:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I've blocked Special:Contributions/178.143.96.0/20 for two months. Let's see if that holds. Also indeffed PupillusLibertatis (talk · contribs) as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Templates?

Why does Canada have its own set of templates? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Number 57 22:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, they have their own party color and seat composition temps. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Where? Number 57 22:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Liberal Party of Canada|Here]]. This page uses them, as I corrected the colour of the party in the regular party colour module. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
You can request it is deleted/merged at WP:TfD. Unfortunately there are a lot of WP:OWN issues on election articles of Anglosphere countries (with editors being highly resistant to any change or adopting formatting used on almost all other election articles), which is one of the reasons why I tend to avoid editing them... Number 57 22:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There is? Geez... Thanks by the way :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

1967 French legislative election

There are conflicting results between the aforementioned election. I found this on the French Wikipedia. What do you think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are many election articles with incomplete/incorrect results on them; by all means add more detailed results if you can find them. Cheers, Number 57 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Incoming and Outgoing Members

I've made a comment on the talk page of this temp. on whether or not the incoming ad outgoing parametres from the usual election infobox should be added. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Folkestone Invicta F.C.

Hi

Regarding your edits to Folkestone Invicta F.C article

I endeavoured to move the article away from multiple references to the Official Site History article and multiple in line references to the FCHD – which I added as an external link together with older tables from the nonleaguematters archive for reference to years not covered by FCHD. The details of the Isthmian league seasons and therefore play-off details are referenced to the relevant Wikipedia pages so I considered the FCHD references superfluous.

There are a few items I would wish to reinstate:-

Re the now removed section post World War 2:

Post-war the club were active and participated in 1949[1] and during the 1950s in the Kent Junior Cup competition at either the 'Group B' or 'Group C' level – making the semi-finals in the latter classification in 1959.[2]

I believe this section should be reinstated. The Kent Junior Cup is a competition for men’s teams at the Junior status level (local amateur) and not a competition for boys/youth teams. This passage shows that the mens team was active during the period to 1949 to 1962 – there being no representation in any regional league I have discovered would which show the continuity of the club over this period.

For the 2009-10 season you have reverted the financial difficulties to ‘administration’. I purposely changed this to the term company voluntary arrangement as the use of a CVA arrangement rather than administration is stated by recovery group members in the now removed contemporary article referenced.

The victory and oppostion in both the Les Leckie Cup in 1990-91 in the Kent Intermediate Shield in 1991-92 are now missing. (I can provide links to both fixtures)

Why has references to the Reserve team been removed? – the article is about the Folkestone Invicta FC club, not solely the first team.

I do not intend to unilaterally reinstate the above items, hopefully we can mutually agree on their relevance and proceed from there.

I also note inter alia now removed are the references to the leagues of the teams’ opponents in mainly the Kent Senior Cup finals: I included these to give some context for the defeats given that most clubs were in higher tier leagues. Similarly the text and associated reference to the financial constraints of the 2010-11 season gave some additional context to the relegation.

As in your opinion as an experienced Wikipedia contributor and editor you do not to consider the items in the immediately preceding paragraph enhance the article I’m not proposing reinstatement.

Also, your reinstated information under the ‘Ground’ section includes a dead link to ‘Pyramid Passion’ (now links to an online gaming site).

Cheers W Wikikipper (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I reinstated the FCHD references as you had left several of the records unreferenced. I've also repaird the Pyramid Passion link using the Web Archive website. Regarding the bits above:
  • I don't think the active after the war bit is necessary, nor participating in the Kent Junior Cup competition noteworthy. It makes it sounds as if this is all they did during this period.
  • I think "going into administration" is a more commonly understood term.
  • I've reinstated the bit about the Les Leckie Cup win (that was a mistake on my part)
  • Re the reserve team, I don't think this is notable enough for inclusion. It is the kind of thing I would expect to see on the club's history section of their website, but not in an encyclopaedia.
  • Re the leagues of the cup final opponents, I think in many readers would not be familiar with the leagues and not realise that they were higher ranked, so didn't think it was worth including.
Cheers, Number 57 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox legislative election temp.

The overlay of colours in the table.

If you know how to, do you think you could solve the issue with the party colours in the temp., as it's currently overlapping with the edge of the table for the results. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Which article do you see the problem on? I can't see any issues. Number 57 21:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Every page that uses it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
There aren't any issues as far as I can see. Number 57 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll upload an image of it :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Done. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
That's how it's meant to look. It's not a fault. The party colour isn't created using a cell, it's created by making the cell wall on the left thicker and colouring it with the party colour. It's a neat way of saving space. Number 57 21:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of using the temp. for this page, but don't know where or not to use parties or coalitions (as there are so many parties). What do you think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

How many parties are there? Number 57 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, a rough estimate would be more than 20, but closer to 30. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I underestimated. More like high 40s, early 50s. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe best to just list alliances, and then parties not in the alliances. Number 57 11:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Estonian parliamentary election

I think that the image_upright parameter does not work as image_upright = 0.6 is supposed to keep the images the same size as image_size = 130x130px. You can test this out by typing image_upright = 0.2 or any other number for example. Do you know what's causing this problem? Vacant0 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No idea unfortunately... It's in the infobox code, so I don't know what's preventing it working... Number 57 15:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Independent politician percentage

Should the vote percentage of independents be added to the leg. elec. infobox? I've been adding them, but since they aren't a party, shouldn't they be "–"? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The percentage for independents would only be "–" for elections with separate proportional and constituency votes where independents don't participate in the proportional vote. If voters cast only one vote (or independents participate in the proportional vote), then the percentage should be shown. Number 57 15:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll change the votes on SK election pages then :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like everything is correct :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Lega Marche in the 1992 Italian election

Hi, I see you keep restoring the Lega Marche wikilink on the 1992 general election page, but I don't understand why. Lega Nord/Lega per Salvini Premier participates in national elections under a single symbol (at that time it was "Lega Nord - Lega Lombarda"), while also using the regional denomination in local elections. it is a certain fact, that Lega Marche was a small local unknown party (see: [15]). I hope I clarified the thing. Cheers. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Namu Wiki Short Names

Should we adopt the short names that are stated in infoboxes from Name. For example, DPK is Minjoo, with references on the Namu page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

We should use however the party is commonly referred to in shorthand by English language sources. Namu Wiki is not to be relied on for anything. Number 57 23:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Local Election Pages

How would you restructure the infobox on local election pages, as I'd like to do the SK local election pages next. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

For individual local elections, or for nationwide ones? Number 57 23:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Nationwide, like this one. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I would use the legislative infobox, but hide the leader column, as national leaders aren't relevant. For local election articles that include mayors and councils, you could split the infobox into the two categories, similar to the split in 1960 South Korean parliamentary election. Number 57 23:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay... I'll look at doing this :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Huntingdon Town FC

What information do you need sourced? I am the owner of the organisation and wish to provide an updated accurate information. I have supported Wikipedia and wish to help and work with you.Thanks, Richard RDM2009 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Party Colour Edits

What is your opinion on my edits to correct the colours of parties in the modules? The reason why is that a user called Impru20 has been reverting them in the last hour. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason for my reverts are your mass replacement of party colours across Wikipedia without any consensus nor discussion or even justification (most of these had –and have, since you are continuing with your mass replacements as we speak– empty edit summaries, tbh). This before threatening to bring me to an admin just for warning you on that, btw, and to use Number 57's own edits (isolated and not massive as yours) as a justification for yours in the ensuing discussion (just to depict the whole story). Impru20talk 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Pakistani general election reserved seats mentioning

Hello I mentioned Reserved seats in 2023 Pakistani general election page and it has been reverted without any reason. I stated that direct elections will be held on 266 seats across the country and 70 reserved seats will be indirectly elect/nominated by the ECP on the basis of result of 266 seats. Reserved seats were never elected by the people of Pakistan. Please mention reserved seats in election template immediately. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't been reverted without any reason – it has been repeatedly explained to you that all seats in the National Assembly are elected based on the votes cast in the election. Appointed seats would only be singled out if they were not allocated as a result of the public vote. Number 57 23:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Graph:Chart

Could you contribute to my post on the talk page of said template please :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it. And unfortunately no-one ever seems to bother responding on that talk page... Number 57 23:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Union for French Democracy

I haven't found any evidence that the party was cyan, but have found its old logos which as blue. Should it be changed, once and if diagrams have changed on election pages? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Being blunt, I would just stop obsessing about such trivialities. You have annoyed a large number of other editors with these constant unilateral changes, and I would suggest stopping doing this for a while. Number 57 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Fine. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Confusion

Shouldn't the results for BSP for Bulgaria be split on the election pages in the leg. elect. infobox? When I merged the results for "Alliance of DJP" you said it wasn't a good idea to combined alliance parties. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, as there is no split between member parties in terms of votes – they run together a single group (where as in the DJP alliance, the parties ran separately but not against each other). Number 57 14:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay then. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Pakistan state assembly constituencies

Hi, could you weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pakistani_politics#Naming_conventions_of_constituencies please. The issue is that the Pakistan Electoral Commission needs to change the constituencies after every census, and a lot of the time, the old constituency and the new one have very little overlap. If you know someone else who is versed on constituencies of various countries, please rope them in as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Infobox election comparison.png

Thanks for uploading File:Infobox election comparison.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2018 Brazilian general election

I noticed the situation at 2018 Brazilian general election. Please don't allow the choice of image and unwarranted reverts by other editors to bait you into an edit war, regardless of who is right. And yes, the other editor should've raised a discussion at the Talk page after your first revert, which was an acceptable revert per policy. But they didn't (and that's on them; they've got bigger problems than you do at the article), and a good path in this case when dealing with that kind of intransigence is not to get sucked into the edit war, but to raise the discussion yourself, even if they should've been the one to do so. Does this mean that they "get their way" by doing the wrong thing? For a little while, yes; but the photo change is not a BLP violation, it's not libel, the world won't come to an end if the image is the "wrong one" while this gets sorted. Please just take the high road on this, let's get a discussion started, and if intransigence continues, let it not be on your side, at least. If you both keep reverting, then it won't look good for you either, when it ends up at the edit warring board, as it inevitably will if this doesn't stop now. Hang in there, and feel free to contact me any time. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

At my urging, the other editor has started a discussion at Talk:2018 Brazilian general election, so hopefully the issue can now be resolved there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response, have been offline for a while. Unfortunately I think it's fair to say the editor in question has an attitude problem – note their edit summaries when reverting an IP ("You are anonymous, your edits and opinions are completely invalid") and also have a long history of uploading copyright-violating images. Because I've called them out on this and other problems in the past,[16] they tend to knee-jerk revert any edits/undos I make to their edits (and make various claims to be being victimised). They have also made various unsubstantiated accusations in the past. This has been going on for several years... Number 57 11:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

French National Assembly

Could you update the links please, as they are "http". ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

On which article? Number 57 11:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
This page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I can't edit it either. You need to contact someone on Wikidata. Number 57 12:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

!

Ballads2110 (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Next Japanese general election

Can you please restore the information you removed from this page? The template and empty section helps inform all editors who come to the page that this needs adding. Thereby hopefully getting someone to add this information who can do so. I'm guessing because of the language barrier it adds extra complications for why it may not have been done yet, plus many editors don't add opinion polling. I don't see any good reason to remove this. Helper201 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't remove any information from the page. I removed unnecessary tags (which are not information). If you want to add some opinion polling, please go ahead; Asia Elects regularly publishes Japanese polling. Cheers, Number 57 21:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, tags then. I have explained why it is helpful to include these. I myself do not feel like I would be able to add these polls as I cannot read Japanese and I'm not someone who does polling. Making other editors aware of what the article lacks only helps increase the odds this information will be added sooner by another editor. It is in no way beneficial to remove these tags. Helper201 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Asia Elects publishes in English. And in the time it has taken you to make the reverts and write these messages, you could have quite easily started a basic polling table. I have to conclude therefore that you have no real interest in improving the article and are just trying to make some kind of point. Number 57 21:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not versed in how to do opinion polling graphs/charts/tables. I'm coming here to peacefully discuss this in a good faith manner, so I'd appreciate it if you could also assume good faith. I am partly making a point, of which I've explained as to why it’s helpful to have these tags on the page in question. You've given no reason as to why it benefits the article in any way to remove this. By your logic if it’s so quick and easy, why didn't you add any polls when you removed the tags? It’s not helpful to dump the ownness on one editor to make specific edits. Helper201 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Neither am I, but if you have a basic level of Wikipedia competence, it shouldn't be hard to copy a table from an old opinion poll article and use it as the basis for a new one. It took me less than ten minutes to do it. Number 57 21:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge

Hello, how exactly is this "very bad idea"? A lot of users pointed this out on talk pages as well. Those parliamentary elections are called general elections in Turkish: genel seçimleri. General election =/= parliamentary + presidential election. There is no such terminology. I'm not sure who found this idea in 2018. Beshogur (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Unfortunately I think some editors (including yourself) are unfamiliar with the fact that general election does indeed refer to elections in which presidents and parliaments are elected simultaneously (e.g. 2019 Uruguayan general election, 2022 Brazilian general election, 2022 Serbian general election and so on). I also explained it at Talk:2023 Turkish general election#Delete this page. Cheers, Number 57 11:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bedford Avenue F.C. players

A tag has been placed on Category:Bedford Avenue F.C. players indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bedford Queens Works F.C. players

A tag has been placed on Category:Bedford Queens Works F.C. players indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Brynn Central F.C. players

A tag has been placed on Category:Brynn Central F.C. players indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2027 elections in Africa

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 elections in Africa indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2027 in Angola

A tag has been placed on Category:2027 in Angola indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Jacobin magazine

Is it acceptable for Jacobin to used as a source? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, but I would check the archives at WP:RSN to see if any issues have been raised. Number 57 21:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:French Polynesian farmers has been nominated for deletion

Category:French Polynesian farmers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:French Polynesian civil servants has been nominated for renaming

Category:French Polynesian civil servants has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Federated States of Micronesia chiefs

A tag has been placed on Category:Federated States of Micronesia chiefs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons

Hi, do you know who would be willing to look at the Administrators noticeboard discussion that I've opened on 2 May on Commons as no administrators or other users have responded yet to the case and the uploads that I've tagged with the {{subst:nsd}} template will be most likely deleted on 7/8 May? Vacant0 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Unfortunately my experience is that admin attention on Commons is really poor. A few weeks ago someone was vandalising the image of the Japanese PM (which was visible on numerous wikis) and it took more than half an hour for anyone to respond... Might be worth trying to find someone who is an admin on both wikis and ask them directly. Cheers, Number 57 14:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Newton Abbot Spurs A.F.C. managers

A tag has been placed on Category:Newton Abbot Spurs A.F.C. managers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

Thank you for the clarification in the revert on the 1990 general election in Romania. I would like to correct the module with the proper special character but I don't know how to do it. Can you please tell me how or can you please do it since it's just one character that needs to be replace, more specifically 'ț'. Please let me know if you can do that at some point in the future. Thank you very much in advance and all the best! Keep up the good work on Wikipedia! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenborg BK Fan: If you go to Module:Political party/C you should find the Christian Democratic National Peasants' Party listed, and you can edit the abbreviation for them. Cheers, Number 57 17:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I just did so! Thank you so much for your clarification! All the best and much respect! Keep up the good work on Wikipedia once again! Take care, stay safe, and happy editing! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Eintracht Vancouver players has been nominated for discussion

Category:Eintracht Vancouver players has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Geregen2 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Turkey elections

Will you be updating the election results as they tick in? I don't want a situation where we both spend time on typing in the same numbers every five minutes or so. Semsûrî (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: No, sorry, I just added the minor parties. Cheers, Number 57 19:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ipswich wanderers

Please can you confirm why you have changed the Ipswich wanderers logo and who you are? 2A02:C7F:3AED:C900:31A1:E9C2:6911:B911 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Because (a) it doesn't match the logo on the club website and (b) the image in question is a copyright violation. Number 57 22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Cheshunt F.C. 2022-23 Season

Please can you confirm why you have nominated the page I took days to create "Cheshunt F.C. 2022-23 Season" up for deletion.

There is enough information there to insure that it is all truthful. HJackson77 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's truthful or how long you spent on it. It is not notable. Number 57 16:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I am so sorry

I am so sorry, I didn't realise we were both working on the creation of an infobox on the 1931 Latvian parliamentary election together at the same time. I am so sorry for overwriting your contribution. TimRainers (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sam Granville

Please advise why you have chosen to raise this article for deletion. HJackson77 (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Because non-league footballers aren't notable. Hence why the article was deleted last year. Also, did you really take the photo of him? It looks like a professional shot (which would be a copyright violation). Number 57 15:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggested solution for our dispute

I don't if you saw what I wrote on my talk page, apoloigies if this is written twice. But I'm writing here to hear if you can agree to a suggested solution.

Currently, another editor just agreed with me that reliable sources should decide which color code each party uses. Currently, most have argued for that case.

We've had this going for a long time now, and so I've though of a solution, which I hope you will agree to. The following is that we agree to.

  • There is not a clear standard procedure in terms of whether a party have their color code as the same of their logo or have their color code as the same of their media portrayal. This is based on the individual party.
  • On Green Left's talk page, the third opinion expressed agreement with you and the idea to keep the color as Dark Red - so we keep it as Dark Red
  • On the discussion of Red-Green Alliance, the third opinion (and an additional fourth opinion) agreed that orange should be the new color - so I will update the color code to orange.

Then we can end this once and for all, instead of keeping our discussions ongoing.

I do apologize for the way I behaved, and I understand your harsh choice of words, I hope you can forgive me for how I've acted. You've taught me a lot of things anyway about wikipedia, and I am happy for that.

Is it ok with you to go for this, or should we keep on discussions, because it will be hard to find an agreement on when it's closed or still open.

Cheers, thomediter Thomediter (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree orange is an appropriate colour to use for Red–Green alliance – the colour should match their logo; the article's infobox will look stupid with orange bands but a shocking pink logo (if you do change it, other editors will just change it back in the not-too-distant future to correctly align the colours as it will be so obviously wrong). And I do not accept your apology – you have behaved appallingly and effectively tried to cheat the system to get your way. Number 57 11:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Another editor just agreed with me that Pink should be used for Green Left, if you do not agree to the solution I proposed, I can hereby change the color codes as I have gained consensus for both. Thomediter (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Either we keep this dispute ongoing, or you agree to admit I've gained consensus for Red-Green Alliance. You asked me to gain consensus, and now that I've gained it you suddenly say that you don't agree. I'm changing the color codes in an hour, and you can either agree to my suggested solution, or let the dispute go on, but in the case of the latter, I've won my right to change color codes of both parties, as I've gained consensus enough for it.
So will you agree to the compromise or let the dispute go on? Thomediter (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to change my mind. Regardless of whether you have gained consensus or not, changing the colours is a stupid move that will inevitably be undone, as editors seeing the colour of the infobox bars not matching the logo colour will keep changing it back. You're just creating an unnecessary and ongoing problem here. Number 57 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The colors of Liberal Alliance and Danish People’s Party have not been subject to edits as you claim will What happen here. It is the same situation for these parties. Thomediter (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
They have. You were literally edit warring over the Liberal Alliance's colour back in February and March.[17][18][19] Number 57 17:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I forgot that one, but we haven’t seen it for Danish People’s Party, so it’s not something certain to happen Thomediter (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
How convenient. And while it's hard to tell if the DPP colour has been regularly changed in the module (unless it's mentioned in edit summaries), I checked the old meta template, and it was changed eight times in the last three years before the module was created. So yes, this will happen if you insist on doing this. Number 57 17:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
But that doesn’t trumph what is the best color to use, we just make sure to tell editors why we’ve chosen the color we have. It’s not the end of the world to sometimes have a color change by mistake.
I prioritize having colors that make sense over having colors that result in a lesser number of edits Thomediter (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The colour that makes sense is the one that matches the primary colour of party logos. If you change the colour of a party like Green Left (Denmark) (which only has one colour in their logo) to one that doesn't match, you are causing unnecessary problems. Number 57 18:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I just don't agree. Howard the Duck (talk) explained it ever so well over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#RfC_about_party_colours.
Instead of choosing one of the logos Green Left have on their website, we should attach the color that the party is most often associated with as per WP:RS.
Denmark's two main brodcasters + the official site of the parliament associates them with pink. Then whatever color that one of their logo designs have - should not be the one we choose on wikipedia. Thomediter (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
For the final time, this is an incredibly stupid idea. You've bludgeoned and cheated your way to try and get a consensus, which if implemented will simply lead to repeated attempts to change it back to the current colour. I have nothing more to say and don't want to waste any more time interacting with you, so please stop commenting here. Number 57 18:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You reply to me but ask me not to reply back to you?
I know you didn't wanna accept it, but I have sent my apology, and I admit I've behaved wrongly.
Currently the color codes are what you want so there is no ongoing of the what you call "cheating"..
I don't think this is a stupid idea, as I've gained agreement from 4-5 other editors.
I am going to deal with it if editors revert the edit I make, and explain to them why the color is as such, and so it's not going to be a problem for you, because I'll deal with it.
You are saying that you don't want to interact with me anymore, does this mean that you won't revert the color codes, if I make the edits now? Thomediter (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

linebreaks

Caused issues how, where, do you have examples of articles. screenshots etc. Please note that we have hatnote template standardisation for a reason and that the current template code is making using of definition lists for the purpose of indentation, which is long an accessibility problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In cases where there is a reference adjacent to the template (e.g. here), it caused a line break to be inserted between the template and reference. Cheers, Number 57 08:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
But that's... like literally what the 2nd and/or 3rd (ppl can't seem to make up their mind) argument of the template is supposed to be used for. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but many people are unaware of that, and have implemented as in the link above. Perhaps you could request a bot run to move any references adjacent to the template inside it, and then implement the change? Cheers, Number 57 19:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Kent Junior Cup". Dover Express. 21 October 1949. p. 14.
  2. ^ "Sports Fixtures: Kent Junior Cup, Semi-finals Group "C"". East Kent Times and Mail. 21 January 1959. p. 2.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Number_57/Archive_16&oldid=1158289513"