Template talk:Infobox legislative election

Template:Infobox legislative election is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Infoboxes This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles Elections and Referendums This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

This template (Template:Infobox Israeli Election) was considered for deletion on 25 January 2013. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Could we have the incoming and outgoing members parametres from the "Infobox election" temp. added to this one please, as it isn't always clearly expressed on election pages about them. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's unnecessary clutter and can be linked elsewhere in the article if needed. Number 57 13:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the many lack of this infobox, I agree with ValenciaThunderbolt that this parameter should be added.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added as well. Glide08 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC about the infobox of the two general elections in Italy, is being held. You are all invited to participate. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the decision to use only the percentages makes the infobox less informative, and would prefer them to be a parameter as well. (In fact, the equivalent Hebrew-language Wikipedia infobox uses the vote number, not the percentage). Glide08 (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this as unnecessary clutter. Infoboxes should be minimalist. Number 57 20:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Number 57. The infobox isn't meant to cover everything: that should be in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an unnecessary clutter - it enables a more accurate view of the votes, which doesn't have the rounding errors associated with percentages (e.g. the 1999 Austrian legislative election, where two parties would be shown as 26.91% even though one had 1,244,087 votes and another had 1,243,672) Glide08 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus to include links to lists of elected and outgoing MPs in the Infobox. In this RFC, only 2/10 !votes were against the proposal. Their arguments were that it is unnecessary clutter in opposition to the manual of style. However, whether something is unnecessary or clutter is determined by the consensus, and here, the consensus overwhelmingly disagrees. (non-admin closure) Fieari (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Should links to lists of elected and outgoing MPs be included in the {{Infobox legislative election}} like in the {{Infobox election}}?

• Yes
• No

Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. You may respond to other editors in the Discussion section.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

• No Clear violation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as it is not summarising key facts in the article (it's linking to other articles). It's unnecessary clutter in the infobox (which is supposed to be minimalist), and can be linked in the body of the article. I also have zero understanding of why a link to previously-elected members is even slightly relevant. Number 57 13:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes It is clearly a fundamental information that does not occupy any additional space, if not the space of two links. The legislative elections concern the election of parliamentarians, and the lists of elected parliamentarians find their natural place in the same infobox. Otherwise, such important information may be lost, causing an useless damage to the article.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes If the infobox has links to the previous and following elections, it makese sense for it to have links to the parliament as it was before and after the election. In addition, replicating features of the other infobox will allow this one to be adopted more easily. Glide08 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, assuming it would be only a single line underneath the years at the top. (I will say, it is always good practice to give editors an example of the change you want to make.) The infobox is already absolutely massive when in use (eg, 2003 Belgian federal election), but this isn’t the straw to break the camel’s back. And of course, {{infobox election}} is an absolute hulking beast too (eg, 2017 New Zealand general election), so we collectively just do not appear to care at all about this sort of problem. — HTGS (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Outgoing and incoming aren't always expressed in election articles. If they were, I would've been against this. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the information isn’t in the article, it can’t go in the infobox. Infoboxes summarise articles and articles have to be able to stand alone without their infobox. The infobox is not meant to be a dumping ground for information that isn’t in the article already. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree with your sentiments, I differ when it comes to this. This is the only addition to the infobox that I'll agree too. Anything else, I won't due to bloat. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a link to another article (list in this case), so that’s obviously not information that needs to be contained within the article. Although the article should probably have a link to the other page elsewhere in the body. — HTGS (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. For example, if the links were added, it would bring to attention to pages for South Korea and Japan, nudging users into editing them as they aren't as complete compared to other countries. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not clear how you disagree. Any links in the infobox should also be in the body, but information contained within a linked article should not need to be repeated in the body of the reader’s current article. — HTGS (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is if they aren't in the infobox, it would be to the detriment of the member list pages as they are, in most cases, incomplete. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling with the logic here. The links can be (indeed, should be) elsewhere in the article, either in the results or see also section (at least the ones to the elected members, I still have no idea why members elected at the last election are relevant). Number 57 20:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... since you're suggesting that they could be in the results, I'll agree to that than having them in the infobox. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Seems like important information and this change provides ease of access to this information to our readers. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 13:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Reviewing the example below this change wouldn't overburden the infobox with too much clutter. This change is a helpful improvement. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No - as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Stop trying to cram ever more information and links into infoboxes. It makes them worse, not better. If people want this information, put it in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes , makes the site more useful Jack4576 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes if done tactfully and non-intrusively. In my experience, I've found that this is a nice way of linking the articles together without having to shove a list of all 650 elected members into the prose. Curbon7 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curbon7: Is it done in prose? The most common ways of doing it (in my experience) are linking to it in the Results section or See also section, which would appear preferable than cluttering the infobox. It's still unclear to me why outgoing members are relevant. Number 57 18:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

1999 European Parliament election in Italy

← 1994 outgoing members 13 June 1999 2004→ elected members →
All 87 Italian seats to the European Parliament
Turnout	69,73 ( 3.87 pp)
Party Leader % Seats +/– Forza Italia Silvio Berlusconi 25.2% 22 −5 DS Walter Veltroni 17.3% 15 −1 AN – PS Gianfranco Fini 10.3% 9 −2 Bonino List Emma Bonino 8.5% 7 +5 Democrats Arturo Parisi 7.7% 6 New This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below.

Replying to Number57: so why should the outgoing Prime Minister be relevant in the infobox? But also the elected Prime Minister, since the latter is not elected directly by the voters,unlike MPs, which you don't want to include (just to make understand the inconsistency of whole reasoning)....--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because elections (sometimes) lead to changes of government. With regards to your comments above:

1. I strongly disagree that this is "fundamental information". The majority of election articles do not even have lists of elected members. The fundamentals are the results in terms of votes/seats won by parties, the change compared to the last election, and who formed a government afterwards.
2. The claim that it does "not occupy any additional space" is simply wrong. Of course adding new links takes up more space.
3. The information will not be "lost"; no-one is suggesting deleting the articles. They can simply be linked to from the body of the article.

Overall, I think your comments show a serious lack of perspective on the matter. I'm also concerned that you are canvassing at inappropriate places (which follows your inappropriate canvassing for the Italian election RfC). Why on earth is it relevant to put a notification on the other election infobox talkpage unless the intent is to get editors who favour that infoboxes' format to comment again? Number 57 14:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tt makes me smile (but not too much) to see that you see bad faith in any of my actions. Then I'll explain it again: the opener of an RFC can publicize the RFC itself in other pages related to the topic (in a neutral way, of course). In the case you mentioned I don't even need to explain the relationship. I rather see that you can't explain why the presence of these links is permissible in the main infobox and not in this one (under your protective wing). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have acted in bad faith throughout the discussion on the infobox, trying to delay the inevitable, canvassing when the RfC wasn't going your way, and then after the RfC went against your wishes, starting trying to make modifications to this infobox to make it more like the one you wanted to use. As was explained last time, neutrality is not the only requirement to avoid violating WP:CANVASS; notifications must be done at appropriate venues (for example, one could leave neutral messages only at userpages of users that is known to agree with you, and that would be a violation of the rules). As for your claim that I "can't explain why the presence of these links is permissible in the main infobox" you have not previously asked my view on this. If you had, I would have said that I don't think the links should be in that infobox either, but sadly attempts to remove unnecessary parameters from that one have failed (apparently because of resistance to change), so I have pretty much given up on trying to make improvements to it given my limited time available for Wikipedia these days. Number 57 22:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make any more accusations without sense, really. Does it look like I left messages on user talk pages? Do you think I left invitations into inappropriate projects? Seriously, avoid commenting inappropriately further. From my point of view, the truth is one: you have almost appropriated an infobox and you propose to use it when you can, preventing changes to it that you don't like. That's it. Otherwise this Rfc was not necessary. And now it's better that we stop this surreal discussion, it doesn't concerns the matter and it can appear boring to other users. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Scia Della Cometa is it possible to add a mock up of how this would look in practice? I think that would be helpful. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov Of course! I cannot edit directly the infobox, but the final result would be similiar to the one below (the additions about outgoing and elected members are in bold).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa: Would the revision of the template include two rows of arrows in both directions? If it will, I'm against that, the arrows are only needed next to the years. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ValenciaThunderbolt: Well, the arrows don't necessarily have to be placed in the infobox, I have only copied them from the Infobox election.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa: Right. Just wanted to make sure is all :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Everyone: Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey, you should discuss with the other editors in this section. Thanks!--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 write here the questions to other editors, please --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

At the bottom of the seats table listing, there is the note "This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below", which links to a section in the article. However, this is contrary to the guideline MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function.

I propose to remove the infobox's note. —Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. As per above, the less in the infobox the better. Number 57 19:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link is not useful, so I agree with the proposal.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the note.—Bagumba (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The note was re-added? Vacant0 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, minus the problematic link. Number 57 10:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As emerged in Talk:2022 Italian general election, sometimes the header is not enough to effectively separate the parties between them: for these specific cases, I propose the possibility of introducing a "footer" in the infobox, as shown alongside. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can do the same using the heading function (as you have done in the example), so there seems to be no need for this. Number 57 18:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so, just think to two consecutive "heading" (that are not possible), and in any case it is not meant for that purpose.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why we would want two consecutive header rows. Number 57 19:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just think to the 2022 Italian general election, they are not necessary but could be used. In any case, the heading is meant to serve the following party, not the previous party/parties, it is a matter of proper use of wikipedia tools.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Following the consensus reached in the Request for comments above, I would need someone able to edit the infobox to implement it adding the parameters of the "Incoming and Outcoming members", like in the {{Infobox election}}. Thanks! Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please, update documentation. Ruslik_Zero 20:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can (optional) fields be added for the outgoing and incoming government(/cabinet/ministry) in the bottom before/after section for both Template:Infobox election and Template:Infobox legislative election? I believe this would be useful, because existing articles about specific governments often don't get linked to in the election page itself. I also notice that the before_election and after_election fields (which are intended to be used for the head of government) are sometimes misused for this (example). -- Dissident (Talk) 19:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a good idea for parliamentary democracies. The Prime Minister isn't everything, the cabinet also matters, especially in cases where there has been a coalition, because cabinet positions are carefully distributed among the various parties with differing politics. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox templates aren't heavily watched, so you might want to link this discussion at WT:E&R & WT:POLITICS. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what the consensus is for the inclusion of independents. I've been adding it to pages for months and included independents, but as they aren't, obviously as party, along with vacancies for upcoming elections, should they be included. What do users think about removing them from where the template is in use, such as the latest French legislative election and South Korean legislative elections too? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independents should be included, otherwise the number of seats won doesn't add up to the expected total. Vacancies shouldn't, as they are not seats won. If there are vacancies, it should be handled by noting in the seats_for_election parameter that not all seats were up for election like (e.g.) here. Number 57 18:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I was adding the party-list results in the infobox of 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections, and was pleasantly surprised it only goes up to 40 parties; I thought this theoretically went to infinity (LOL). Party-list representation in the House of Representatives of the Philippines is a major clusterfuck, and most elections since 2007 see 50+ parties winning. I can understand why people only wanted the top 40 parties, but that means the note "This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below." has to be revised if we're only limiting it to a top x winners. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many more do you need adding? Cheers, Number 57 23:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 2019, 61 parties won seats, so that's the record. If you need a nice round number, go for 70. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative is for the ability to change the note, so that we can assign arbitrary thresholds in the infobox. For example, in 2022 only 6 parties won 2 or more seats (but that leaves out 48 seats in the infobox). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have taken it up to 70. Cheers, Number 57 23:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is obscene. Talleyrand6 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm transferred this template into Mongolian Wikipedia, but it has one problem. The party column shows parties in center not starting from the right. What could be the problem? Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enkhsaihan2005: I think it was sorted with these edits. You may have to do the same for the party leader row to get it left-aligned. Number 57 09:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it? I can't get it worked Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enkhsaihan2005: It has been done. If you look at mn:2020 оны Улсын Их Хурлын сонгууль, the party names are now left-aligned. Number 57 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change this template to wikitext here (changes requested illustrated here). Simulataneously change Template:Infobox legislative election/row to wikitext here (changes requested illustrated here).

These edits, as described and tested in my sandbox will create three new parameters for future elections, which if set to "yes" will create a column in the table with the number of seats each party won at the last election (include_last_election), or a column with the number of seats needed for a majority (include_seats_needed) (either calculated automatically, or "N/A"s can be added if a party doesn't stand in enough seats to win a majority with another new set of parameters with seats_needed1, seats_needed2 etc. Note parties who won a majority at the last election will have "—" displayed in this column.), or allows the current column depicted number of current seats to be removed (no_current_seats). All these parameters are optional, and unless they are set to yes, there will be no change to existing infoboxes.

So my suggestion will allow more info (which is found in the Template:Infobox election version) to be shown this infobox. To reiterate it is optional to include these changes (so shouldn't be controversial) on any given page, and these changes will only potentially affect infoboxes for future elections.

When copying the wikitext from User:TedEdwards/sandbox1, please make sure you do so from this old version of the page, as the version in my sandbox calls from my other sandbox, where I tested my edits to Template:Infobox legislative election/row. --TedEdwards 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These proposals look terrible, and I oppose them being made. Major changes like this need discussion and consensus before being requested. Number 57 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: These proposals look terrible is entirely your own opinion (see WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT) and one you have not substantiated at all. And in the immediate aftermath of the changes to the source code of the template and subtemplate being changed, nothing will change: as editors will have to set at least one of the include_last_election, include_seats_needed, or no_current_seats to "yes" for anything to happen. This means discussions can happen at the article level. I'm also not suggesting all three columns affected by these new parameters have to be present on any given article: that is something to be discussed at the article level (or they can discuss which columns to include and not include). So I don't think this suggestion should be controversial as if editors don't want the infobox to change on a given article, all they have to do is make sure the new parameters I created aren't set to "yes", and the infobox will remain exactly the same. And even if across all pages that use this infobox editors decided to keep the status quo, my changes to the template won't do any harm (they'll effectively be neutral changes).
Since you have not actually given any reason to decline my request, I have reset it --TedEdwards 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of expanding my comments but there was an edit conflict. What I should have said is that these proposals make the infobox look terrible when all the new proposed columns are used – it forces the infobox to be unnecessarily wide with lots of whitespace and appear horizontally bloated, as well as making the party and leader columns are too narrow, forcing multiple row breaks that bloat the infobox vertically. As a result, I oppose them being made as proposed. I can see the benefit of showing both the last_election and current_seats together (the second one down here – but the large amount of unused space needs resolving, which I would suggest by putting a row break between the words 'Last election' and 'Current seats' to make those columns narrower (which would also avoid forcing the party and leader columns to be too narrow). However, I can't see the benefit of a "seats needed" column, particularly given this template is largely used in countries where no party ever gets close to winning a majority of seats.

As I said above, significant changes like this need discussion and consensus before being just requested via the edit request function (hence why I responded to your edit request to say no to it). Number 57 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I've added conditional line breaks to my sandbox, so there will be a line break if 2 or 3 out of the 3 columns my parameters affect are present. Otherwise there won't be a line break. I've done it like this because at the moment with just the Current Seats column, there isn't a line break. So this may go some way to resolving your concerns.

You are right that for many countries, the seats needed column won't be necessary. But that column is optional, and say in Israel where, as I understand it, parties don't get majorities as they use PR, I would assume if a discussion ever arose, there would be concensus for the status quo i.e. not to include the column. So to reiterate, my changes don't force anyone to change anything to existing articles, and all 8 examples of forthcoming UK elections I give in the sandbox are possible with the changes I've made. And even if the seats needed column is hardly used, if it's beneficial on just one article, it's beneficial (with no harm) to include the possibility of that column in the template.

I'm also not suggesting that all the possibilities I've made theoretically possible and have shown in my sandbox will be useful. But the way I have coded it, editors on the individual articles can decide which possibility is best.

I thought an edit request would be OK, simply because I'm not mandating any changes to any article, or causing any changes to automatically occur (the three infoboxes in this section of the sandbox were to demonstrate that, as for the first two, the only change is to call the sandbox, not this template). I thought discussion to include new columns would be best on the individual article talk pages, my requested edit was merely to allow that discussion.

As a suggestion, if you want to quickly reject edit requests, then give your detailed reasoning, could you end your first message with something like "I'll explain my reasons in more detail shortly"? Just so the situation that happened here is less likely to happen again.--TedEdwards 19:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've rearranged the test infoboxes in my sandbox to reduce scrolling, so the second one down here is now the second one down on the left-hand side. --TedEdwards 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – it looks a lot better with the line breaks. Could I also suggest the party and leader headers are centre-aligned vertically (it looks a bit odd with them being top-aligned). In fact, it might be worth making centre-aligning vertically standard across the entire table).

I am still not convinced seats needed is a good idea – the UK example looks quite messy with all the N/As, and the numbers also look a bit ridiculous for any party other than the Tories and Labour. It's also something people can deduce pretty easily themselves without having to be shown it.

And apologies again for my initial comments. Number 57 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're worried I was offended by your original comments, don't worry, I wasn't. On their own, as we agree, they were unsubstantiated and that was my only problem with them. But you have explained you reasoning more than sufficiently now, and I thank you for your suggestions. I will try the alignment one out shortly, but I agree they do look better with the line break, and so thank you again for that.

I've noted your thoughts about the seats needed column, but I won't remove the option of the column from the sandbox at least for now, so other editors can chip in on that column. But, still, maybe in other countries where majorities are frequent (and where over half the parties in their parliaments don't stand in enough seats to win a majority) it might be useful? --TedEdwards 19:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this edit to vertically align one-line headers, but I can't say it looks perfect: it looks better but the height of the headers has increased slightly and the alignment I don't think is perfect. Maybe editing Template:Infobox legislative election/styles.css could sort this problem, but that's beyond me (I would be reluctant to edit that even if it wasn't protected)? If you can think of a better way of vertically centering, or improving my method, the text feel free to try it out in my sandboxes (User:TedEdwards/sandbox1 and [[User:TedEdwards/sandbox2). --TedEdwards 22:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi editors

There have been several discussions at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election about the use of this infobox. The first issue is that for future elections, even where the legislature has been dissolved like the UK, the infobox if the "ongoing" parameter is set to "yes" the infobox will say "current seats", which is innaccurate as there are no Members of Parliament in the UK at the moment in this pre-election period. Two discussions about this are at Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#There are no "Current seats" and Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2#Do they currently have seats, or not?. To fix this I did a somewhat bizarre edit here, where among other things I changed the "ongoing" paramter to "no" (O.K. I know I could have just blanked it rather than say "no"), but it would be more ideal if there was a parameter for dissolved legislatures, which I'll get onto later. This is because of consequences of my edit e.g. that rather than saying "incumbent Prime Minister" it says "Prime Minister before" now.
The other thing mentioned (e.g. in Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#One of the most significant part of the election is missing from the infobox) is maybe it would be better for the infobox to display the seats won at the last election, rather than seats at dissolution or current seats. Which would again need a new parameter.
I have therefore sandboxed two parameters, "legislature_dissolved" and "display_last_election", in my sandbox. For the "display_last_election" parameter, this would necessitate changes to Template:Infobox legislative election/row, which I have tested by having my sandbox transclude from another sandbox with my suggested changes there. Note if "display_last_election" is set to yes it overrides "legislature_dissolved". Also for any page using this infobox, there will be no change until one of my suggested parameters is set to "yes".
My suggested changes are summarised in these diffs, this one for the main template and this one for the /row subpage.

Best wishes. --TedEdwards 18:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A great idea. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I support too. Bondegezou (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. For the version with 'Seats at dissolution' can the headings be vertically centre-aligned? Having them top-aligned creates a bit of whitespace under the Party and Leader headings. Cheers, Number 57 00:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I agree that they would look better vertically centre-aligned. However, the previous attempt I did during our previous discussion above made that row taller and the alignment wasn't that good anyway. I don't know if there's anyone who would know how to change the css page for this template (at Template:Infobox legislative election/styles.css) to make headers vertically centre-aligned (which might be best for all the headers for this template). But it seems to be a fairly minor concern of yours, as it is for me, not that either of us wouldn't want it fixed. --TedEdwards 01:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Me again. I've actually just managed to go some way to fixing the problem in this edit to my sandbox.In situations when the column called "seats at dissolution" is present, the alignment for parties and leaders is aesthetically better. I won't say the alignment's perfect though, but it gets rid of most of the white space. If there's a possible edit to the css page, that might be better. --TedEdwards 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely an improvement. TBH I am wondering if we can turn this infobox into a module, which would save code by allowing infinitely repeating rows, and probably make coding a lot easier (I find the Lua code easier to work with than the coding used for this template). Cheers, Number 57 18:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thomediter (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I have made this slight tweak so that "display_last_election" overrides "ongoing", if "ongoing" is set to "counting", but not if "ongoing" is blank. This means for an ongoing/future election, setting "display_last_election" will always cause there to be a "last election" column. But this is quite a minor change.--TedEdwards 18:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:Infobox legislative election. (edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · test cases · transclusion count · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Description of suggested change: As discussed above, to introduce new parameters "legislature_dissolved" and "display_last_election" for future elections, to alter name of column with seat numbers to "Seats at dissolution" and "Last election", if each parameter respectively is set to "yes", and let numbers in that column be set by existing parameters "last_election#" in the case of the latter. "display_last_election" changes column name and contents when "ongoing" is set to "yes" or "counting", and overides "legislature_dissolved", even if that is set to "yes". "legisature_dissolved" only changes column name if "ongoing" is set to "yes. This edit would require changes at Template:Infobox legislative election/row. I have sandboxed the changes here, for changes to this template, and here for changes to the row sub-template, which in the other sandbox I transcluded from.

Diff: For ease, I have included my proposed wikitext here for the whole of each template for each can be found here for Template:Infobox legislative election/row and here for the main template, but the diffs are summarised below

• To Template:Infobox legislative election/row:

• To this template:

• And also to this template, all 70 instances of this:

--TedEdwards 19:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, the infobox legislative election template has unfortunately stirred up controversies on Twitter and ignited a fresh edit war. I was largely apathetic (and think it’s frankly a bit trivial) on this until now. Although I see the advantages in ILE’s vertical layout, its detractors have some fair points:

1. It lacks parameters crucial for its adaptation to the myriad of electoral systems.

2. It’s admittedly not the most aesthetically pleasing template on this site.

3. The ILE template is a bit lacking in intuitiveness (which should be one of the aims of an infobox). For all its flaws, the old Infobox Election template , with its pictures for leaders, is very intuitive at least for the largest parties. The only intuitive visual element of ILE is a tiny sliver of color to the far left end of a row.

Neither the ILE nor the IE templates are perfect. I believe, instead of this emotionally charged tug-of-war, maybe we should come together and have the best aspects of both worlds.

Many of the English Wiki’s sister sites have excellent election infoboxes. Maybe we should learn from them 沁水湾 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57@Anonymousioss@Volescap@Vachilles@PLATEL@Gust Justice@Bondegezou@Braganza@RyanW1995@Laester 沁水湾 (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least more things about the infobox must be customisable, and as many features as possible from Infobox election must be incorporated into it, such as the registered parameter, which is annoyingly missing. Ideally multiple columns should also be possible for elections using e.g. parallel voting. I think an import of the Spanish wiki's infobox format should at least be considered. It might serve a purpose as a middle ground between the two formats, especially in those instances where there are ~7-12 parties winning seats. Gust Justice (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that an infobox should contain information in a compact manner. I am a supporter of ILE, as this infobox is able to accommodate all the parties that have won seats, and do so in a compact manner. However, people do not find this infobox aesthetically beautiful. But if you think about it this way, in different situations and contexts these two infoboxes may look different, and neither of these two infoboxes can completely replace each other.

Right now I remembered that when I made my wiki, I used the election infobox from the Spanish Wikipedia in it. It combines well the features of both current infoboxes in use, and I think we could try translating it into English and try using it in some articles.  PLATEL  (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but the Spanish one is arguably worse than even the ILE, if there's overwhelming majority support for the IE wikibox then it should be used, all this beating around the bush about "compromise" to satisfy a tiny minority of 2-3 editors who prefer ILE instead of IE is insane. Matthew McMullin (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a fair characterisation of the discussions on this. Now it does depend on the election in question, but on the talk pages where Infobox legislative election has been used, at least half of the users in the discussion expressed support for it. Regardless, Infobox election is not usable in cases where you want to display 10 parties or more (and those instances definitely do exist), since it is limited to 9 parties/candidates. This discussion, at least as far as I understand it, is not about whether one format must be used on all pages, but rather about changes that should be made to the template. Gust Justice (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely been used as a blank check to alter every election by Number 57, I mean come on look at the mess that is 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections. I skimmed through the talk pages and the only people siding with the ILE were 4 editors from a year ago who alone decided they were enough for a wiki-wide consensus to start happening. Matthew McMullin (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because not enough people were aware of it. A case of how to alert users about such changes. Anyway, while I prefer TILE over TIE for legislative elections (especially when there are independents elected), I think the TILE on the page needs condensing to regionalists and sector representatives. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's more of an issue of process than an issue with the infobox merely existing. A lot of conflicts would be better resolved if more users participated in discussions. But it seems to be a lot easier to get outrage over people's views elsewhere on the internet, than it is to use talk pages to handle the issue. Regarding 2022 Philippine House of Representatives elections I do think that the very weird electoral system warrants not showing all parties winning seats. But again: This doesn't mean every usage of Infobox legislative election is necessarily bad. Gust Justice (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are, however, intertwined, as if users were more aware of discussions, we not be where we are today. It is something Wikipedia is bad at, and that is to involve users in discussions. Anyway, as I've stated before on another talk page, a solution would be to condense the parties by regionalists and professions. This would drastically reduce the number of parties in TILE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean obviously this is a touchy subject given recent events but this is where extra-Wikipedian social networks *can* be used for good. Wikipedia just doesn't really have a good way to keep relevant people in the loop. All of this controversy began because someone used another platform to start a conversation about editing issues happening over here. Maybe for future reference there should be a way to formalize that network without causing further controversy. Discord, perchance. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind that idea. I feel maybe that would be a good to keep the balance between hard-working Wikipedians, and those people who both use Wikipedia a lot and are very passionate about it. I definitely fall into the later. CainNKalos (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the one who stirred up controversies on Twitter. But in here I respect your inputs very much, you are an excellent contributors to Wikipedia. I agree the template needs the change. But how? Anonymousioss (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know. I just think both sides have some fair points. People are being a bit melodramatic over something relatively trivial. I just want to get the conversation started so people can channel their collective passion into something more productive than edit warring. The English Wikipedia deserves better. 沁水湾 (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the anger I've seen is mostly down to Number 57's dodgy record with "consensus" and the fact he wouldn't initially accept the will when a majority on another talk page sided against his viewpoint Matthew McMullin (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@沁水湾: @Gust Justice: @Matthew McMullin: @Anonymousioss: I think, both the IE and the ILE have their own advantages and disadvantages. The IE is obviously more intuitive for the major parties and more customizable for various types of electoral systems. However, the IE could only accomodate 9 different parties. The ILE is less intuitive and less customizable, but could accommodate more parties. I think we need to make ILE more intuitive and customizable. I do love both, though.

By the way, I do agree a bit with Anonymousioss and Matthew's opinions. You (沁水湾) are an excellent contributor to Wikipedia. I really love your election maps. Many of your colorful election maps adorned several IEs and ILEs on this wiki! I also love your moderate arguments and your attempts at building consensus rather than forcing your own opinions when there are so many who opposed them. RyanW1995 (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think 9 is a pretty fair number of parties allowed, in 90% of democracies there'll be 9 or less "major" parties, for the rare exceptions like Israel or Holland the ILE works fine (and has been used for many years afaik) Matthew McMullin (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a clear preference for TILE over TIE, except for certain countries. For example, while I back having TILE for prior to 1994, I'm for TIE since 1994, as elections for the parliament also indirectly elect the President of the country. One way to represent elections could be a halfway of what I did for the result pages for Japanese election from 2003 and beyond with TILE, and using TIE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the two major parties are represented with TIE, while the minor parties are represented with TILE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there doesn't need to be any "halfway point", an overwhelming supermajority of people support TIE and therefore it should be used, it's not rocket science Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good place to start in my eyes would be to at least specify some use cases in the template documentation, which is incredibly sparse. For example, I'd be in favor of recommending that TILE not be used for most Westminster-system elections or other elections where party leaders often end up being heads of government, such as in a lot of other European elections. I'd be in favor of in favor of most Italian and French elections (especially Fifth Republic elections) using TILE instead, since the parliamentary leaders aren't often the people who end up being heads of government. Pave Paws (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pave Paws: Maybe a compromise would be that for presidential systems, TILE is use, while for non-presidential systems (excluding Westminster systems), TIE is used? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you meant the reverse, though if not that's what I would prefer either way. Westminster countries like the UK, Canada, India, etc. who elect their heads of government from the party leaders and where party leaders are very much a focus of elections should have the party leaders front and center.

I think the best way to resolve the disputes over TILE in any case though is to just improve it functionally and aesthetically, as has already been proposed. It looks really ugly when there are red hyperlinks and boxes left empty, which doesn't improve the reader's experience, and aesthetic complaints have been the main driving force of the controversy. Pave Paws (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say including Westminster systems. Countries like South Korea and France would be good candidates for TILE, as their elections are focused on parties, rather than leaders, as their presidents are elected separately.

I think we need to see some proposed changes, as simply talking about them will get us nowhere. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good compromise then, though I'd exclude some unique cases on either side, such as U.S. congressional elections and Israeli elections. This is probably worth another section on either this talk page or another for further comment among more people involved in the disputes. Pave Paws (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you think of this being used to show constituency and proportional seats? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! I think it'd work well for two-round systems too. It could be improved by adding a header to the first box to show that it shows both proportional and constituency results. I think it'd work well at least until someone gets around to proposing/implementing some of the proposed changes, like supporting two or more columns to more accurately represent parallel voting and two-round systems. Pave Paws (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err... not a bit fan of modifying it to include columns for parallel voting or two-rounds (two-rounds could be a modified version of the one used on the 2003 Japan results page). I think I have a solution that would be a mixture of TIE and TILE for parallel elections. I'll create it later ;) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Valencia,

I’m not sure if this should be the primary way to judge whether to use TILE or not. Arguably in most elections and countries around the world nowadays, elections are centred around parties, even in Westminster systems like the UK.

Additionally, the party is often associated with the leader of the party anyway - maybe Indonesia 2024 may have some exception (Jokowi voters going for Prabowo but still sticking to PDI-P who had a diffferent guy) - but otherwise, a focus on the leader is quite often a focus on the party’s policies anyway.

I would still argue the main criteria for use of TILE should be for number of parties. Israel doesn’t have a directly elected president, instead picking a leader from their Knesset like how the PM is picked amongst MPs in eg UK, but Israel has many parties that aren’t especially strong, and so would be hard to summarise in TIE. This isn’t the case for UK, where eg 5 parties (eg Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, Reform, and even SNP) would cover the vast majority of seats anyway. Not every party would have to be included, as that’s the job of the results table, which doesn’t have to be nearly-duplicated on the infobox iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 06:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of this. Whilst I'd prefer to just use TIE for all, and thus just have the one standard, I can definitely see why you'd need to use TILE instead for some countries, like Israel, the Netherlands, Philippines, etc. Maybe have something along the lines of 'use TIE always; except for situations where TIE is impracticable, use TILE instead.'? CainNKalos (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents should be a blanket policy of "effectiveness."

IE works good for certain elections (such as France with its blocs or Anglo countries with their strong party leaders) but ILE works well for other elections (i.e. Netherlands or Israel or Brazil). I don't see why we need a blanket policy forcing one format or another. There should be local consensuses of relevant editors to decide that with, of course, room for consensuses to change.

I will say, as a mapper, that having one standard for everything is often times a road block to the more important final product. Each country or each election demands adaptability. Find most effective solution for each scenario.

As for ILE as a whole, people more competent on this issue should decide. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I generally think TIE is often better than TILE, and if it had to be a pure binary one or other, I think TIE works better than TILE

I think TILE is more appropriate for elections with many *important* parties, and where the “big” parties don’t get many votes. Ie, TILE is better for situations where it has a main advantage - handles lots of parties better. Otherwise the additional information TIE provides, images, leaders seat, ultimately improves the whole page.

I think what may be needed is clarification on **how much info is too much**. The line about “The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose,” has been misused in a crusade against TIE in favour of making everything TILE. Removing information like leader’s seat means less information, but it doesn’t suddenly make the article a whole lot clearer. It possible, the wording should be changed to allow for more leeway in allowing images and that.

Additionally the TILE format is quite similar to a results table anyway, and aesthetically, in many cases, isn’t better.

I’m not sure so much if it is about TILE needing upgrades versus a more consensual and limited approach to using it. iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 06:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]