Talk:2020 Taiwanese legislative election

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Taiwan presidential election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrist1 (talk • contribs)

Non-Partisan Solidarity Union
Did the NPSU dissolve or merge into another party? It's in the infobox but nowhere else on the page, which seem quite complete. There's nothing either on the party's page. --Aréat (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yea their girl May Chin was elected in the aboriginal seat, why are they not counted?(Guest edit)

Swing
The figures you keep insisting on adding, do you even know what they mean? Ythlev (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes I very much do know what is, it is the percentage point of the result of this election vs the previous (decrease or increase or steady), so please don’t rv the edit. - Centrist1 (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What percentage point exactly? Clearly you don't know that even though it is clearly written. Ythlev (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My goodness, I’ll explain to you in the best way possible, the DPP had 33.9% in this election in 2016, they had 44.3, that’s a swing down 10.4 pp, all elections use this method. - Centrist1 (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll explain the best I can. NPP got 6.1% party-list votes in 2016 and 7.7% in 2020. That's a swing of 1.6, not 3.2. You're comparing two different things. Ythlev (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I’m gonna explain in a different, currently the swing is based of party list %, when results are revealed (party list and constituencies), numbers will change, there’s a note attached for clarification. - Centrist1 (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why on earth do you insist on comparing apples to oranges? It's meaningless. I'm working on changing all percentages to party-list since constituency percentages use the whole electorate rather than those that are contested, which doesn't make a lot of sense. But in the mean time, just remove the meaningless info. Ythlev (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No taking swings off is not going to happen, it’s not meaningless, but, I will revise the swing pp - Centrist1 (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also NPP had three seats before the election not five. Ythlev (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, I never edited anything about 3 vs 5 seats with NPP and NPP won 5 seats not 3 last election. – Centrist1 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. Stop doing and saying shit before checking anything. Ythlev (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't you ever use foul language against me or anyone again, this is a world-wide source, you are not talking to a close friend or something, absolutely disgusting and unacceptable, no manners at all and you know what that edit about the 5 seats was an accident and I didn’t see it, so calm yourself down a bit. – Centrist1 (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"The swing of a party is New party" makes no sense. The swing of a party in not available. Ythlev (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually it does, the party is new, so that’s filling in, the info is there and the note is attached. – Centrist1 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a new party, that’s why it’s labeled new party. - Centrist1 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want "seat change" to be seats won-last election, make sure you update other elections too. Ythlev (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok will do - Centrist1 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Swing is "New Party" but seat change is a number? What's the difference between them? Ythlev (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, seat change the party increased the number of seats, swing is labeled as new party, it doesn’t need to be labeled twice. - Centrist1 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok what? These two field have the same concept. Is there a particular reason to label either as "new party" and the other to repeat the figure? Or do you just randomly decide how to fill the fields? Ythlev (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow I didn’t think it would be that difficult for you to understand. I didn’t randomly, first of I don’t randomly decide anything, I can’t believe you even assume that and what’s the point of filling the same thing in one column? - Centrist1 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's going to be "the same thing" regardless. TPP won 5 seats and gained 5 seats. Ythlev (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah since it’s new, it’s not hard to understand. - Centrist1 (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

PP
Articles for things in different countries are different. They need not conform to a standard without good reason. MOS:OVERLINK: "the following are usually not linked: Everyday words understood by most readers in context". Ythlev (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, pp means percentage point, no election article uses the method that you prefer. The percentage point article is there for a reason, for it to be used, this is a false claim of it being MOS:OVERLINK, it’s not. The talk is not about countries, the talk is about why the article of percentage point is there. Centrist1 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it not? Do you know anyone who wouldn't understand what the figures mean when they see "percentage points"? Ythlev (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, get to a computer to edit instead of using a mobile. You're reverting the wrong edits. Ythlev (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the percentage point link is provided for these kinds of edits, it’s not about people reading - Centrist1 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, in the past minutes you have been making the wrong reversions. You've not re-added the links but re-added non-breaking spaces which I've removed as they are unnecessary. Ythlev (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No that’s is incorrect. - Centrist1 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're going to link it, do so for turnout and for all elections where applicable since you are so keen of being consistent. Ythlev (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For turnout I plan on doing a link, but the percentage point for swing is supposed to be used for it as well. - Centrist1 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And why? Ythlev (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the link for pp is used for the turn out and swings, it’s not overlinks. - Centrist1 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going to link for other types of elections? Ythlev (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

3RR violations
You are both well over three reverts in the last 24 hours. If either of you reverts on this article again in the next few days, I will be blocking you. Number  5  7  21:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hsinchu County I
Hsinchu County I is unequivocally a new constituency. There was no constituency with the same name in 2016. Ythlev (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Full results
The number of votes, votes percentages, registered voters and turnout of the Constituency column doesn't include the data of the six aboriginal seats. The current table is misleading, with DPP having obtained 46 seats from those 6,332,168 votes, and not 48. Cf the french article, or the Taiwanese one. --Aréat (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Parallel voting
How about separate figures using ? And what about voter count and turnout figures? Ythlev (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tested a new model based on the, similarly to what is used for French legislative elections, in both 2008 Taiwanese legislative election and 2012 Taiwanese legislative election. What do you think? Btw, I've noticed that some of the results appearing at the latter were wrong, based on data taken from the official source. Full constituency results in the article's results table seem to be missing as well.  Impru 20  talk 11:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It has too many figures and goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. We should not copy the format of a country whose electoral system is different for the sake of unnecessary consistency. Take 2017 French legislative election for example, the turnout for the two rounds are noticeably different, so it makes sense to include both. For Taiwan, the two turnout figures are nearly identical, so it can be represented with just one figure, as can the electorate size. For turnout, we can just take an average. For electorate size, just choose one as main and include the other in side note. For other figures, the same spirit should be followed. Ythlev (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The system has not been literally copied, but adapted. What you propose violates several Wikipedia guidelines: For turnout, we can just take an average. For electorate size, just choose one as main and include the other in side note. This goes against WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. One thing is to make routine calculations, another one is to cherry-pick one figure as the "main" one (when none of them is above the other) and suggest calculating an "average" which is not given nor calculated by any source (see WP:SYNTH). Impru 20  talk 18:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If simply moving a figure to footnote is called cherry-picking, then anything we write can be called cherry-picking. As for average, I'm sure it isn't hard to find a source that simply averages two numbers. If averaging turnout figures is OR, then so is calculating swing. Scrutinising for OR here is quite meaningless. Ythlev (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Ythlev (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I find the matter quite simple : only the proportional votes covered every single voter. The constituencies and aboriginal votes were separate ones, with different voters. Neither consisted of every taiwaneses. So the figures that should be used to portray the election as a whole should be the PR ones. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You do realise that most seats come from constituency votes right? This isn't a party approval referendum. Ythlev (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. The PR vote is the one in which all the voters expressed their preferences unbound by the necessity of strategic voting caused by FPTP. These numbers are the closest reflecting the choices of the voting population. How the system translated this in a number of seats got nothing to do with it.--Aréat (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I said this isn't a party approval referendum. The article is x legislative election, not Approval ratings of political parties. The infobox should show how many seats each party won and how they got those seats. Constituency votes are absolutely essential to that. Ythlev (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Then either we show only the proportional votes, for which a strong reasoning could be built (as other similar systems such as 2017 German federal election and 2017 Japanese general election do) or we show both. Mixing up both results by aggregating them, averaging them or whatever is pretty much SYNTH and is not allowed. Impru 20  talk 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comment. Ythlev should not arbitrarily revert other editors' effort anymore. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * or we show both. There is no consensus for your removal of constituency seats. Ythlev (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion has long been concluded. The only thing agreed is that the two types of statistics should not be mixed, and I agreed to it. Now you are proposing something new, so start a new section. Ythlev (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It stays that the constituency results should NOT be mixed with the party list results and we agreed upon it but you later added back the constituency results again, which is an act in bad faith. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mixed here means WP:SYNTH. Don't edit-war based on a discussion you didn't participate and don't understand at all. I will report you for vandalism if you continue. Ythlev (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As you've both exceeded 3RR at multiple articles (Ythlev was on their fifth revert), you're both blocked for 48 hours. If anyone reverts without achieving consensus on their return, you'll be blocked again. Aréat, Impru20, this is not a debate I was following. This information (and these notes seems to be the main issues. What are your views on whether this text should be included/removed? Cheers, Number   5  7  12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Customary practice throughout Wikipedia has been to show PR popular vote results in the infobox for countries with such a double constituency/proportional system (Germany, Japan, South Korea...). I think we should be consistent here as well and keep it simple. I don't see a particular reason as to why constituency-only won seats should be listed separately from the seat totals in an infobox, either.  Impru 20 talk 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's my conclusion as well.--Aréat (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to follow conventions for the sake of it when there are better practices. Showing PR only is misleading because PR seats only make up 30% of the total and the DPP got 34% but over 50% seats. Ythlev (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to point it out, no one has said we should only add PR seats, this is about the popular vote. PR block popular vote is the most representative of each party's actual strength since it is not bound to local strategic alliances whatsoever. It's also the vote that gets recorded in opinion polling. Infobox are meant as summaries, not as cluttered versions of the main table adding needless information. There is no need for a specific "Constituency seats won" row in the infobox nor is it clear why should this be regarded as a "better practice".  Impru 20 talk 16:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Infobox are meant as summaries, not as cluttered versions. Then tell me this: why does the template have six  fields? PR block popular vote is the most representative of each party's actual strength. Define "representative" and "strength". The support of a party is inherently specific to the type of election and its barrier to contest. In the presidential election, most NPP "supporters" would vote for DPP. Does that mean those votes are "fake"? What if one day anyone can run for president and everyone votes for themselves. Is that more representative? Ythlev (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * These are auxiliary rows in case some particular election or set of elections may need different row names. They are not intended for you to fill them with your first occurrence. Their use is not even required, at all.
 * No one is saying the votes are "fake" nor making any of the (rather WP:OR) implications you do here, so I'll skip those.
 * I'm not seeing you explaining the need for the specific formatting you are defending as "better practice" (and you seem to be alone on this), so I think this discussion is pretty much set.  Impru 20 talk 18:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is now going round in circles. There seems to be fairly clear consensus that the constituency seats should not be separate item in the infobox (only one of the four editors involved thinks it's appropriate). I suggest they are removed everyone moves on. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)