Talk:2024 South Korean legislative election/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Democratic Alliance seats
The proportionnal system if of a closed list, and we know the entire list, so if it gained 12 seats, we should be able to complete the table instead of giving all twelve to the democrat party. I'm not sure how to add the "United Political Citizens Assembly", though. Aréat (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like United Political Citizens Assembly candidates are effectively alliance-backed independents (similar to Poland)? Number 57 00:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I think, but I found no source to back it up or clear things up.--Aréat (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- This source refers to them as "representatives allocated to civil society" and "candidates recommended by the public", which suggests they are not party-affiliated. Number 57 00:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nice find. I started to add it in the table and have separate proportional seats results for the coalition component, but I'm failling to understand the code. Sorry. --Aréat (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- So it looks like 2 independents, 8 Democratic Party, 2 Progressive Party and two New Progressive Alliance candidates elected? Number 57 10:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've added it to the table. Number 57 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Might I ask, where in the article does it confirm this is the order?In addition, I see on Namuwiki that DPK gains 171, one independent is a member of a party, while NPA actually wins a seat, not two. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've added it to the table. Number 57 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- So it looks like 2 independents, 8 Democratic Party, 2 Progressive Party and two New Progressive Alliance candidates elected? Number 57 10:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nice find. I started to add it in the table and have separate proportional seats results for the coalition component, but I'm failling to understand the code. Sorry. --Aréat (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- This source refers to them as "representatives allocated to civil society" and "candidates recommended by the public", which suggests they are not party-affiliated. Number 57 00:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I think, but I found no source to back it up or clear things up.--Aréat (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
New Progressive Alliance
According to what is written on this page the New Progressive Alliance won 2 seats. It’s made up of the Basic Income Party, the Open Democratic Party, and the Social Democratic Party. Can someone please provide a source that shows which of these parties won now has a seat or seats? Helper201 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- The two NPA candidates that were elected on the proportional list were Yong Hye-in and Han Chang-min. Yong is the leader of the Basic Income Party, while Han appears to be from the Social Democratic Party. Number 57 22:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Number 57 can you please update the Basic Income Party page with this information and cite it please? If the Social Democratic Party can be sourced as having an elected representative in the National Assembly, then they should probably have a page created for them. Helper201 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be better listed at Democratic Alliance of Korea page, where I have cited those two members. However, I couldn't find a source for Choi Hyuk-jin's affiliation. There is a Korean article on the SDP (at 사회민주당 (대한민국, 2024년) if anyone wishes to translate it. Number 57 22:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Number 57 but if the Basic Income Party has a member of the National Assembly then their page should reflect as such. Currently it says they have 0. I don't know of a reliable source that explicitly states that it now has a member of National Assembly. That's why I asked if you could please update the Basic Income Party page. Helper201 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be better listed at Democratic Alliance of Korea page, where I have cited those two members. However, I couldn't find a source for Choi Hyuk-jin's affiliation. There is a Korean article on the SDP (at 사회민주당 (대한민국, 2024년) if anyone wishes to translate it. Number 57 22:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Number 57 can you please update the Basic Income Party page with this information and cite it please? If the Social Democratic Party can be sourced as having an elected representative in the National Assembly, then they should probably have a page created for them. Helper201 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Social Democratic Party
Why is the Social Democratic Party listed separately from the New Progressive Alliance? It ran within the NPA, so should be included within those results. Helper201 (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed this unless and until someone can provide a good reason for listing them separately. Helper201 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The infobox seems to miss out a lot of important information?
| Option one - simple version with all DA parties together | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Option 2 - all parties listed individually | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Option 3 - broken down into alliances | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Option 4 - showing proportional and constituency results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
While this infobox is good for pure proportional representation systems or FPTP systems with a huge number or parties, it's kind of doing a disservice when used in SK's system. Shall we use something more akin to the one used in Scotland (example here)? 143.111.84.172 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Unless the infobox can be used to include the constituency results (i.e. votes, percentages and seats) like it currently does for the proportional results, then the infobox should probably not be used in this case. Its misleading to only include partial results in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, as an outsider, I'm extremely confused how the Democratic Party - who apparently won 180 seats in the 2020 - is being said to have "won" with 176 seats instead of characterizing this as holding their majority. Can someone clarify this? Criticalthinker (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your comment – are you talking about the introductory text. The Democratic Party did win with 176 seats. How is this not characterised as holding their majority? What would you expect to be shown? Number 57 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve noticed widespread confusion on social media regarding the disparity between the PR vote percentage for DAK and the seat share of the DPK+ bloc.
- Given that the majority of seats in this election are determined by FPTP constituencies, where decoy lists like DAK and closely affiliated splinters such as RKP are inconsequential, the current information box inaccurately reflects the election outcome by only displaying the PR vote share.
- In my opinion at least the two main parties’ constituency vote share (DPK & PPP) should be included in the info box for an accurate picture. 沁水湾 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be best to simply exclude the percentages entirely, as if we used the constituency vote, Rebuilding Korea appear to have no votes. I have proposed a couple of options to the left with the percentages excluded, one with a simple listing of parties, and one with the alliances broken down into parties. Number 57 23:19, 13 April 2024
- Then something must be getting lost in translation. Let me try, again. In the English language, at least, elections don't exist in a vacuum. It is accurate to say that the Democratic Alliance won a majority. But what would be an even more clear description and inform even more so is that the Democratic Alliance won and retained or held its majority. To simply say that it won the election isn't as informative as it could or should be. In fact, showing that the top party lost seats makes the description even more confusing absent context.
- In any case, it looks like someone fixed the sentence that does both of the things I suggested by providing the proper context (i.e. opposition collectively increasing their majority). Criticalthinker (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- BTW, person didn't appear to sign their comment below, so I can't reply direct to it, but I like Option 2, though 3 would be acceptable. Removing the vote total is a must. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy with option 2. Cheers, Number 57 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- My ranking is 3>2>4>1. The "Legislative election" template can't address the nuance of vote%. I agree it'd be better to exclude vote% if it causes confusion. The ultimate solution would be for someone to perfect the legislative election template, adding new fields for axillary purposes.
- Someone changed the infobox and placed PPP as the first place party, which is misleading. I'm going to be bold and change it to option 2. 沁水湾 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy with option 2. Cheers, Number 57 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your comment – are you talking about the introductory text. The Democratic Party did win with 176 seats. How is this not characterised as holding their majority? What would you expect to be shown? Number 57 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree with the first two comments, as I have already stated in another discussion the infoboxes of numerous pages have been modified without any discussion or consensus. The {{Infobox legislative election}} is not at all suitable for mixed electoral systems, so the {{Infobox election}} should be restored, which given its flexibility can show both proportional and constituency results. Removing percentages from the infobox is not the solution, because it is correct that the results are shown.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with your claim that the legislative election infobox is not suitable for mixed systems. But if you think Infobox election can do a better job, can you show an example of what it would look like so that the options can be directly compared? I've added a fourth example of the right that shows how the legislative one can be used to show mixed election system results if there was insistence the figures needed showing. Cheers, Number 57 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the option shown, the best ones are 3 and 4, leaning towards 4 more. In some aspects it is similar to Italy, but not as the major parties used satellite parties. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾 and ValenciaThunderbolt: I think you should wait for the outcome of the discussion before starting to modify the infoboxes again. It seems to me that these pages have already been modified too much without taking into account the consensus of the community. Why should the election results be removed from the infobox?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- What result? I’m pretty sure it’s the consensus now that including only the PR vote share is confusing at best and misleading at worst.
- I changed the info box to option 3 from above because prior to it shows the PPP as coming on top, which is wrong. This is meant to be a temporary measure. If a consensus forms around another option (I’m ok with all four), we can always switch to it.
- Or there’s something wrong with my map? 沁水湾 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾: I think the infobox should contain both results: party list and constituency. I absolutely agree that including only the PR vote share is confusing and misleading. The {{Infobox election}}, before it was replaced with the {{Infobox legislative election}} without any discussion, contained both. For this reason I am against all four examples given above, and I would like the {{Infobox election}}, used until a few months ago, to be restored. This massive replacement of infoboxes has not been decided anywhere, on several occasions some users tried to restore the previous long established version and were rolled back...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh I absolutely agree with that. As I said before under another talk page, although {{infobox legislative election}}'s more compact vertical layout makes it easier to distinguish smaller & larger parties, its lack of fields is its undoing.
- IMO, the legislative election template is too rudimentary for elections other than simple party-list PR with no alliance (like the Netherlands). It needs urgent updates before further widespread adoption. 沁水湾 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾: What parameters would you want to see included? Would just an additional column so that both percentages can be shown? Or moreo than that? Number 57 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think a 1-to-1 match with infobox election's fields could be a starter. Here are just a few:
- 1. Distinguish previous election results and seats total immediately prior to the election.
- 2. Differentiate seats won in a given election verses the seat total post election. This is particularly crucial for elections with staggered terms, such as those in the Australian Senate and the Japanese House of Councilors.
- 3. Change in percentage point in vote share
- And yes all purpose auxiliary fields would absolutely be useful to dealt with the myriad of electoral systems. 沁水湾 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've started to put some ideas together of how an infobox could be laid out most effectively at User:Number 57/sandbox 2, with four different ideas for how a party's results could be displayed. This is based on the French/Spanish wiki infobox, which have often been favourably looked upon due to their vertical alignment. Comments welcome, and you are also welcome to play about or add additional rows to the sandbox to show how you think it could be better laid out. Cheers, Number 57 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’d definitely call that an improvement.
- On a side note, I’m a big fan of the bar charts in German Wikipedia. I’ve been trying to recreate them manually for UK by-elections 沁水湾 (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- And I think it’s a good idea to keep the overall seat-total bold. It’s after all still the most relevant info. 沁水湾 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've started to put some ideas together of how an infobox could be laid out most effectively at User:Number 57/sandbox 2, with four different ideas for how a party's results could be displayed. This is based on the French/Spanish wiki infobox, which have often been favourably looked upon due to their vertical alignment. Comments welcome, and you are also welcome to play about or add additional rows to the sandbox to show how you think it could be better laid out. Cheers, Number 57 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾: What parameters would you want to see included? Would just an additional column so that both percentages can be shown? Or moreo than that? Number 57 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I add rhat this reasoning is valid for all mixed electoral systems, i.e. for Russian, Japanese, Thai or Venezuelan elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think your comments are a bit misleading. The old infobox was not "used until a few months ago" – it was changed in January 2023 and the current one has been used for the majority of this article's existence (and as far as I can see, no-one ever tried to restore the previous infobox on this article). And why can't you show us an example of how the alternative would look? I suspect because it would look atrocious in comparison – probably at least double the size and just a mess. Also, if your complaint is about the infobox not showing results for both constituency and party-list votes, what is your objection to option 4? The old style infobox as used on previous election articles did not break down the seat figures by the two types of votes, so if anything, this contains more information, but in a more compact way. Number 57 11:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Don't pretend you don't know that the discussion also extends to the other Korean elections: you rolled back the infobox restore on the 2020 Korean elections page, just as you did with the Japanese and French elections. It is no surprise that the {{Infobox legislative election}} was also used for the 2024 Korean elections, when you had already imposed it for all previous elections. The flaw of the fourth example of infobox is evident: the parties are repeated three times, when with the {{Infobox election}} they would be listed only once. In your view the {{Infobox election}} is always "atrocious" and a "mess", but why did you feel entitled to replace them all with the {{Infobox legislative election}}? Not everyone thinks like you. The fact that the infobox is larger is not a problem, what matters is the clarity, which is evidently lost with the {{Infobox legislative election}}.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Every single word. There are evangelists of {{Infobox legislative election}}, who seem to be unable to compromise to the idea that {{Infobox election}} have places where it is the better solution in terms of clarity, and have been changing election infoboxes everywhere often without much discussion. 45.19.62.0 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Don't pretend you don't know that the discussion also extends to the other Korean elections: you rolled back the infobox restore on the 2020 Korean elections page, just as you did with the Japanese and French elections. It is no surprise that the {{Infobox legislative election}} was also used for the 2024 Korean elections, when you had already imposed it for all previous elections. The flaw of the fourth example of infobox is evident: the parties are repeated three times, when with the {{Infobox election}} they would be listed only once. In your view the {{Infobox election}} is always "atrocious" and a "mess", but why did you feel entitled to replace them all with the {{Infobox legislative election}}? Not everyone thinks like you. The fact that the infobox is larger is not a problem, what matters is the clarity, which is evidently lost with the {{Infobox legislative election}}.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think your comments are a bit misleading. The old infobox was not "used until a few months ago" – it was changed in January 2023 and the current one has been used for the majority of this article's existence (and as far as I can see, no-one ever tried to restore the previous infobox on this article). And why can't you show us an example of how the alternative would look? I suspect because it would look atrocious in comparison – probably at least double the size and just a mess. Also, if your complaint is about the infobox not showing results for both constituency and party-list votes, what is your objection to option 4? The old style infobox as used on previous election articles did not break down the seat figures by the two types of votes, so if anything, this contains more information, but in a more compact way. Number 57 11:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾: I think the infobox should contain both results: party list and constituency. I absolutely agree that including only the PR vote share is confusing and misleading. The {{Infobox election}}, before it was replaced with the {{Infobox legislative election}} without any discussion, contained both. For this reason I am against all four examples given above, and I would like the {{Infobox election}}, used until a few months ago, to be restored. This massive replacement of infoboxes has not been decided anywhere, on several occasions some users tried to restore the previous long established version and were rolled back...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾 and ValenciaThunderbolt: I think you should wait for the outcome of the discussion before starting to modify the infoboxes again. It seems to me that these pages have already been modified too much without taking into account the consensus of the community. Why should the election results be removed from the infobox?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The infobox seems to miss out a lot of important information?
| Option one - simple version with all DA parties together | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Option 2 - all parties listed individually | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Option 3 - broken down into alliances | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Option 4 - showing proportional and constituency results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
While this infobox is good for pure proportional representation systems or FPTP systems with a huge number or parties, it's kind of doing a disservice when used in SK's system. Shall we use something more akin to the one used in Scotland (example here)? 143.111.84.172 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Unless the infobox can be used to include the constituency results (i.e. votes, percentages and seats) like it currently does for the proportional results, then the infobox should probably not be used in this case. Its misleading to only include partial results in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, as an outsider, I'm extremely confused how the Democratic Party - who apparently won 180 seats in the 2020 - is being said to have "won" with 176 seats instead of characterizing this as holding their majority. Can someone clarify this? Criticalthinker (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your comment – are you talking about the introductory text. The Democratic Party did win with 176 seats. How is this not characterised as holding their majority? What would you expect to be shown? Number 57 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve noticed widespread confusion on social media regarding the disparity between the PR vote percentage for DAK and the seat share of the DPK+ bloc.
- Given that the majority of seats in this election are determined by FPTP constituencies, where decoy lists like DAK and closely affiliated splinters such as RKP are inconsequential, the current information box inaccurately reflects the election outcome by only displaying the PR vote share.
- In my opinion at least the two main parties’ constituency vote share (DPK & PPP) should be included in the info box for an accurate picture. 沁水湾 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be best to simply exclude the percentages entirely, as if we used the constituency vote, Rebuilding Korea appear to have no votes. I have proposed a couple of options to the left with the percentages excluded, one with a simple listing of parties, and one with the alliances broken down into parties. Number 57 23:19, 13 April 2024
- Then something must be getting lost in translation. Let me try, again. In the English language, at least, elections don't exist in a vacuum. It is accurate to say that the Democratic Alliance won a majority. But what would be an even more clear description and inform even more so is that the Democratic Alliance won and retained or held its majority. To simply say that it won the election isn't as informative as it could or should be. In fact, showing that the top party lost seats makes the description even more confusing absent context.
- In any case, it looks like someone fixed the sentence that does both of the things I suggested by providing the proper context (i.e. opposition collectively increasing their majority). Criticalthinker (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- BTW, person didn't appear to sign their comment below, so I can't reply direct to it, but I like Option 2, though 3 would be acceptable. Removing the vote total is a must. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy with option 2. Cheers, Number 57 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- My ranking is 3>2>4>1. The "Legislative election" template can't address the nuance of vote%. I agree it'd be better to exclude vote% if it causes confusion. The ultimate solution would be for someone to perfect the legislative election template, adding new fields for axillary purposes.
- Someone changed the infobox and placed PPP as the first place party, which is misleading. I'm going to be bold and change it to option 2. 沁水湾 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy with option 2. Cheers, Number 57 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your comment – are you talking about the introductory text. The Democratic Party did win with 176 seats. How is this not characterised as holding their majority? What would you expect to be shown? Number 57 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree with the first two comments, as I have already stated in another discussion the infoboxes of numerous pages have been modified without any discussion or consensus. The {{Infobox legislative election}} is not at all suitable for mixed electoral systems, so the {{Infobox election}} should be restored, which given its flexibility can show both proportional and constituency results. Removing percentages from the infobox is not the solution, because it is correct that the results are shown.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with your claim that the legislative election infobox is not suitable for mixed systems. But if you think Infobox election can do a better job, can you show an example of what it would look like so that the options can be directly compared? I've added a fourth example of the right that shows how the legislative one can be used to show mixed election system results if there was insistence the figures needed showing. Cheers, Number 57 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the option shown, the best ones are 3 and 4, leaning towards 4 more. In some aspects it is similar to Italy, but not as the major parties used satellite parties. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾 and ValenciaThunderbolt: I think you should wait for the outcome of the discussion before starting to modify the infoboxes again. It seems to me that these pages have already been modified too much without taking into account the consensus of the community. Why should the election results be removed from the infobox?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- What result? I’m pretty sure it’s the consensus now that including only the PR vote share is confusing at best and misleading at worst.
- I changed the info box to option 3 from above because prior to it shows the PPP as coming on top, which is wrong. This is meant to be a temporary measure. If a consensus forms around another option (I’m ok with all four), we can always switch to it.
- Or there’s something wrong with my map? 沁水湾 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾: I think the infobox should contain both results: party list and constituency. I absolutely agree that including only the PR vote share is confusing and misleading. The {{Infobox election}}, before it was replaced with the {{Infobox legislative election}} without any discussion, contained both. For this reason I am against all four examples given above, and I would like the {{Infobox election}}, used until a few months ago, to be restored. This massive replacement of infoboxes has not been decided anywhere, on several occasions some users tried to restore the previous long established version and were rolled back...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh I absolutely agree with that. As I said before under another talk page, although {{infobox legislative election}}'s more compact vertical layout makes it easier to distinguish smaller & larger parties, its lack of fields is its undoing.
- IMO, the legislative election template is too rudimentary for elections other than simple party-list PR with no alliance (like the Netherlands). It needs urgent updates before further widespread adoption. 沁水湾 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾: What parameters would you want to see included? Would just an additional column so that both percentages can be shown? Or moreo than that? Number 57 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think a 1-to-1 match with infobox election's fields could be a starter. Here are just a few:
- 1. Distinguish previous election results and seats total immediately prior to the election.
- 2. Differentiate seats won in a given election verses the seat total post election. This is particularly crucial for elections with staggered terms, such as those in the Australian Senate and the Japanese House of Councilors.
- 3. Change in percentage point in vote share
- And yes all purpose auxiliary fields would absolutely be useful to dealt with the myriad of electoral systems. 沁水湾 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've started to put some ideas together of how an infobox could be laid out most effectively at User:Number 57/sandbox 2, with four different ideas for how a party's results could be displayed. This is based on the French/Spanish wiki infobox, which have often been favourably looked upon due to their vertical alignment. Comments welcome, and you are also welcome to play about or add additional rows to the sandbox to show how you think it could be better laid out. Cheers, Number 57 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’d definitely call that an improvement.
- On a side note, I’m a big fan of the bar charts in German Wikipedia. I’ve been trying to recreate them manually for UK by-elections 沁水湾 (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- And I think it’s a good idea to keep the overall seat-total bold. It’s after all still the most relevant info. 沁水湾 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've started to put some ideas together of how an infobox could be laid out most effectively at User:Number 57/sandbox 2, with four different ideas for how a party's results could be displayed. This is based on the French/Spanish wiki infobox, which have often been favourably looked upon due to their vertical alignment. Comments welcome, and you are also welcome to play about or add additional rows to the sandbox to show how you think it could be better laid out. Cheers, Number 57 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾: What parameters would you want to see included? Would just an additional column so that both percentages can be shown? Or moreo than that? Number 57 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I add rhat this reasoning is valid for all mixed electoral systems, i.e. for Russian, Japanese, Thai or Venezuelan elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think your comments are a bit misleading. The old infobox was not "used until a few months ago" – it was changed in January 2023 and the current one has been used for the majority of this article's existence (and as far as I can see, no-one ever tried to restore the previous infobox on this article). And why can't you show us an example of how the alternative would look? I suspect because it would look atrocious in comparison – probably at least double the size and just a mess. Also, if your complaint is about the infobox not showing results for both constituency and party-list votes, what is your objection to option 4? The old style infobox as used on previous election articles did not break down the seat figures by the two types of votes, so if anything, this contains more information, but in a more compact way. Number 57 11:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Don't pretend you don't know that the discussion also extends to the other Korean elections: you rolled back the infobox restore on the 2020 Korean elections page, just as you did with the Japanese and French elections. It is no surprise that the {{Infobox legislative election}} was also used for the 2024 Korean elections, when you had already imposed it for all previous elections. The flaw of the fourth example of infobox is evident: the parties are repeated three times, when with the {{Infobox election}} they would be listed only once. In your view the {{Infobox election}} is always "atrocious" and a "mess", but why did you feel entitled to replace them all with the {{Infobox legislative election}}? Not everyone thinks like you. The fact that the infobox is larger is not a problem, what matters is the clarity, which is evidently lost with the {{Infobox legislative election}}.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Every single word. There are evangelists of {{Infobox legislative election}}, who seem to be unable to compromise to the idea that {{Infobox election}} have places where it is the better solution in terms of clarity, and have been changing election infoboxes everywhere often without much discussion. 45.19.62.0 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Don't pretend you don't know that the discussion also extends to the other Korean elections: you rolled back the infobox restore on the 2020 Korean elections page, just as you did with the Japanese and French elections. It is no surprise that the {{Infobox legislative election}} was also used for the 2024 Korean elections, when you had already imposed it for all previous elections. The flaw of the fourth example of infobox is evident: the parties are repeated three times, when with the {{Infobox election}} they would be listed only once. In your view the {{Infobox election}} is always "atrocious" and a "mess", but why did you feel entitled to replace them all with the {{Infobox legislative election}}? Not everyone thinks like you. The fact that the infobox is larger is not a problem, what matters is the clarity, which is evidently lost with the {{Infobox legislative election}}.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think your comments are a bit misleading. The old infobox was not "used until a few months ago" – it was changed in January 2023 and the current one has been used for the majority of this article's existence (and as far as I can see, no-one ever tried to restore the previous infobox on this article). And why can't you show us an example of how the alternative would look? I suspect because it would look atrocious in comparison – probably at least double the size and just a mess. Also, if your complaint is about the infobox not showing results for both constituency and party-list votes, what is your objection to option 4? The old style infobox as used on previous election articles did not break down the seat figures by the two types of votes, so if anything, this contains more information, but in a more compact way. Number 57 11:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾: I think the infobox should contain both results: party list and constituency. I absolutely agree that including only the PR vote share is confusing and misleading. The {{Infobox election}}, before it was replaced with the {{Infobox legislative election}} without any discussion, contained both. For this reason I am against all four examples given above, and I would like the {{Infobox election}}, used until a few months ago, to be restored. This massive replacement of infoboxes has not been decided anywhere, on several occasions some users tried to restore the previous long established version and were rolled back...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @沁水湾 and ValenciaThunderbolt: I think you should wait for the outcome of the discussion before starting to modify the infoboxes again. It seems to me that these pages have already been modified too much without taking into account the consensus of the community. Why should the election results be removed from the infobox?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
?
"The election saw opposition parties, primarily the Democratic Party of Korea, lose a combined amount of four seats, while individually winning more seats than at the previous election."
Again, what is going on, here? The 2020 election page shows the Democratic Party, individually winning 163 seats...and they won 169 seats at the latest election. It was the coalition that lost seats (180 to 176). This is poor wording. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Seem so. Please don't hesitate fixing it.--Aréat (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed it just now. I did suspect it to be WP:OR and POV-pushing. Borgenland (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Infobox - part 2
I'm starting a new discussion, since the previous one has been archived: so, what do we do with the infobox? it is quite clear that the current one is absolutely inadequate. I remain of the same opinion: we must restore the {{Infobox election}} and if an alternative solution is not found it seems to me to be the only practicable way. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have unarchived the previous discussion, in which some proposals were made (here) on which comments would be welcome. Like 沁水湾, I think option 1 works best. Number 57 23:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived again. However, the point is: if a solution for mixed systems is not provided, the previous infobox will necessarily have to be restored. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It will not "have to be restored" – what happens next (if anything) is dependent on consensus being reached here. An alternative to the current infobox has been proposed though for comment. Number 57 22:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me like you ever sought consensus when you changed the infobox, if I were to restore the previous infobox I wouldn't do anything very different. In any case your proposal is a step forward, but you should create that infobox and replace it in all Korean elections (but also in Japanese, Russian, Venezuelan and Thai elections). Personally, in any case, I prefer the {{Infobox election}}. And a solution must also be found for the French elections, given that there too you replaced a suitable infobox with an unsuitable one. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't change the infobox, and the editor that did didn't need to seek consensus as it was a bold edit that no-one objected to (seeking consensus would only be required if their change was reverted within a reasonable timescale).
- Anyway it would be good to know if anyone else has any views on the alternative proposal. Number 57 23:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me like you ever sought consensus when you changed the infobox, if I were to restore the previous infobox I wouldn't do anything very different. In any case your proposal is a step forward, but you should create that infobox and replace it in all Korean elections (but also in Japanese, Russian, Venezuelan and Thai elections). Personally, in any case, I prefer the {{Infobox election}}. And a solution must also be found for the French elections, given that there too you replaced a suitable infobox with an unsuitable one. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- It will not "have to be restored" – what happens next (if anything) is dependent on consensus being reached here. An alternative to the current infobox has been proposed though for comment. Number 57 22:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived again. However, the point is: if a solution for mixed systems is not provided, the previous infobox will necessarily have to be restored. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).