Talk:1994 Finnish European Union membership referendum

Result table
The result table should use the same on as used on Template:UKEU2016Results with valid votes and total votes separated since the percentages don't match the total votes at the moment. --URunICon (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (a) No it shouldn't and (b) the percentages and totals do match. The UK one is used only on a handful of articles and is not very well formatted. Number   5  7  20:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The yes-column's  makes, not 56.89 as it says on the article. They don't match. So which one is the correct number? --URunICon (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 56.89 is correct. You're dividing it by the wrong number, deliberately I have to assume. Number   5  7  20:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm diving it by the total number shown right now in the article (2,861,841), so what you're saying is that you're in the wrong? --URunICon (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You know you need to deduct the number of invalid votes before calculating the percentage. Please don't play dumb here. Number   5  7  20:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly! That's what I'm saying. That's why total number bolded here should not include the invalid ones. Instead, show it in a different column. --URunICon (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary. Number   5  7  20:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * But right now the numbers don't match like you yourself said above. So maybe change it so that it matches? This ain't rocket science. --URunICon (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They do match; all the numbers in the table are correct. Number   5  7  20:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Like you said, 56.89 is correct. But now if you divide yes-votes from total you get 56.63. Do you not see the difference? --URunICon (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You know you full well that you don't divide yes votes by the total number of votes cast to get the percentage, so can you please move on from flogging this particular dead horse. Number   5  7  20:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly why we should the numbers in different columns just like it is done in all other well made tables. Why else would all these other editors separate the valid and invalid votes? --URunICon (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think it's required and the UK ones are not a common format. "other well made tables" is entirely subjective and is not a statement I agree with. Number   5  7  20:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * But the numbers don't match, how many times do I have to say it. Why are you so reluctant to correct it? --URunICon (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But they do match – you've acknowledged the percentages are right. How many times do I have to say that? There is nothing to correct here. Number   5  7  20:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The percentages are taken from a number that isn't in the article as of now. Now it has a different total number which gives the wrong percentage of 56.63 in the for-column. We should correct that and place it in the article. --URunICon (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The percentages are taken from the source. And 56.63 is not the number in the table, so please stop banging on about it. Number   5  7  20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Even the source lists valid votes separate from total. 56.63 is a number in the column if you divide the for votes with current number in the total-column. --URunICon (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And I get 40.09 by dividing the number of "for" votes by the number of registered voters, but like 56.63, the number is meaningless because it's not how it's calculated. Number   5  7  20:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Total votes shown should be divisible with the for and against columns. You shouldn't have to subtract and do all this kind of nonsense to see if the numbers are correct. That's why it's done my way in other tables like the UK one above, and the source listed below the table. --URunICon (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

We could also compromise and use the Referendum template and correctly fill all the fields. --URunICon (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It could look something like this:

--URunICon (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a fan of that format, but I'll agree to using it here and at Finnish prohibition referendum, 1931 on the condition that you stop trying to change the election results tables. How about that? Number   5  7  21:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Remember that you don't have a monopoly on the election result tables. From now on you should use base templates to be consistent. Add quotemarks in  and   to be proper. --URunICon (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that I don't have a monopoly. I won't be using base templates, because it won't be consistent with what's out there. And anyway, the only difference between a table created as a wikitable and one using Electiontable (assuming you do it in the article, which you should if it's not transcluded elsewhere) is the font size; I'm not entirely sure why 95% is an improvement on 100%. Number   5  7  21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You could start a conversation about it on the election table talk page if you want to change the font. I don't make the rules. --URunICon (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was just in an edit conflict as I was going to also point out that Electiontable can't be used in instances when the table is hardcoded onto the article (which it should be in the majority of cases) as it creates [edit] and [discuss] links which then don't work – see here. Number   5  7  21:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The editlinks can be disabled with  so it shouldn't be an issue. --URunICon (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But in that case it's a completely pointless template as it just duplicates the heading of a wikitable. Number   5  7  21:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess that's where the font comes in. It's probably been discussed somewhere that it should be 95% since it's in the template. Like I said if you don't like the font, you should start a discussion to change it to 100%. --URunICon (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But as the majority of election articles don't use electiontable, there's clearly not a great demand for a 95% setting (I've never seen it raised in the ten years I've been editing election articles). Anyway, we're drifting off topic here. I don't really like the table above, but it's a vast improvement on the UK one, so if you're willing to stop widening this dispute to any more articles, then I'll agree to it. Can we put this to bed now? Number   5  7  22:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You should still code properly by adding quotemarks in  and  . So if you're willing to separate the valid votes from invalid votes elsewhere then I have no problems. --URunICon (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically you don't want a compromise, you want your preferred version everywhere. I'm afraid I'm not in favour of doing that. Number   5  7  22:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not whether I prefer it or not, it's simply the correct way. That's why it's in the source and that's why it's in other tables. --URunICon (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it's because you prefer it. And please stop using misleading terminology like "correct" – there is no "correct" way – there are different ways – the question is which way individual editors prefer. Valid votes are in some tables and not in others. Number   5  7  22:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * We should follow the example of higher quality tables. And the quality is assessed by the quality of the code, and those almost explicitly separate valid/invalid votes. --URunICon (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this is entirely subjective. I think the current results table is of higher quality, both code-wise and presentation-wise. Number   5  7  22:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well once you've seen enough code you begin to differentiate what is good and what isn't and if even simple things like quotemarks are missing, you know it's not that good. --URunICon (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)