Talk:2020 Swiss referendums

Sources on the November 29th Swiss Referendums
Can anyone find a source about the issues that will be put on the ballot for the November referendums? Currently I can only find the issues for the delayed May/September referendums. - Karthanitesh (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked in, but we probably don't know yet, the votation calendar is made with dates for decades to come, but the Federal Council assign specifics votation to these dates only three to four months beforehand. --Aréat (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for the info! Karthanitesh (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Results table format
Hello, I noticed you reverted parts of my tables edits in this page and two others, here is why I think they would be important to keep. Colors help in clarity for the reader: single-majority referendums make the winning wide (yes/no) obvious, while double-majority referendums also show if only one of the majorities was reached (it also made obvious from the graying-out whether a majority of the cantons was needed). The tables centering was just for consistency with the color templates (but it can be avoided by using style bgcolor instead of templates); and the moving of the registered voters to the final line helps de-cluttering these wide tables (since the number of registered voters is always the same). Julio 9 7 4 ◆ (Talk-Contribs) 13:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the colours, one reason I removed them is because the colour system was very unclear and inconsistent. Why were only the percentages red/green and not the numbers? Why were the cantons coloured grey rather than green/red? Why was only one set of figures green/grey/red and not both the yes and no. It really didn't seem to make any sense.
 * IMO registered voters should remain in the table next to the turnout – putting it as a sort-of footnote looks very odd and I think readers may miss it. I don't think it is clutter.
 * Moving the cantons into the For/Against columns was a good move though. Also, no need to ping as I have this on my watchlist. Cheers, Number   5  7  13:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The system for colors was rather simple:
 * If single majority, put the winning option in color (green for yes, red for no) and grey out the cantons to show they are not needed (this was previously shown by not indicating the cantons counts at all, but it was lost information)
 * If double majority needed (popular initiatives):
 * If both vote yes or both vote no, put the winning options in color for both popular vote and cantons count,
 * Else, put the winning option in color but the overturned option in yellow for clarity.


 * For example, here are respectively a simple "yes" majority, simple "no" majority, "yes" double majority, "no" double majority, and an overturned majority:


 * I colored the percentages rather than the raw votes counts since they give more information as to how close or wide the victory was (without having to consult the other column and compare). Thanks for the cantons moving, okay for the registered voters count, and yes I ping just in case when I'm talking to someone outside of their talk page if they haven't talked there yet. Julio 9 7 4 ◆ (Talk-Contribs) 14:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining. Unfortunately I don't think it's that simple. If cantons don't count, they shouldn't be shown – showing them is misleading IMO. I hadn't realised you had added them in when they weren't relevant.
 * I don't think the colours in the table are easily understandable by readers – I had to read the explanation a couple of times to work it out, and I have a decent understanding of the table!
 * If we were to use colours, and I don't think we need to, then I think it needs to be much simpler, like below, i.e. green where it is yes, red where no. Cheers, Number   5  7  15:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The use of both "yes" and "no" colors in the same row seems confusing, if a majority is overturned we could simply put no color at all for its cell? Or maybe ditch colors altogether (apart from the last column) and use bold (except for italics when the majority is overturned). Cantons are still useful information (which is shown on the swiss admin page on referendums results whether they are needed or not), we could perhaps put them in parentheses when they are not needed. Julio 9 7 4 ◆ (Talk-Contribs) 18:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously our brains work differently, as I'm struggling to see how the table below is confusing, or how the one above is clear :) I think therefore it would perhaps be best to keep the colours out of the table except in the final column; I'm also not sure what bolding certain cells would achieve, as the same cells that are coloured would also be bolded, so presumably the same confusion would apply.
 * Re cantons, I think any inclusion of them when not relevant, however they are marked, would be confusing, as I can't see how they could be marked in a way that made it clear that the cantonal result was not relevant. The info is in the map anyway, so I don't think there is an issue with continuing to exclude this. Cheers, Number   5  7
 * Here is an example of what I was thinking about for the bold cells and the parenthesized cantons:


 * By the way, I think it may be better to move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to get a broader opinion. Julio 9 7 4 ◆ (Talk-Contribs) 07:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the table directly above, I think it's best to avoid bold/italics, as I don't think the italics will make any sense to an uninitiated reader (I don't understand why you've italicised the yes vote figures in the bottom row). For the same reason, it's best to exclude the irrelevant canton results – readers will not understand why they are in parentheses, and we don't want to have to add a key to each table to explain what various formatting means.
 * The discussion shouldn't be moved to WT:E&R, but you could leave a notification there to get more input if you feel it will help. Unfortunately there are one or two editors with grudges against me who usually take the opportunity to take the opposing position to whatever I've said, so watch out for those... Number   5  7  18:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)