Talk:2021 German federal election/Archive 1

Time to get ready, folks....
The Big headline in the NY Times is that Merkel has said that she would rather have new elections than have a minority government. So...we should start getting ready to drasticly alter this article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

How did you generated the graphical summary?
Hey all. Sorry for asking this Question which is not relevant to the Article, but I have been trying to generate a graph for Cypriot Elections 2018 at the Greek version of Wikipedia, and it is a little bit confusion. How can someone create such a graph? Is there a tool within the WP or should someone create it in an extra-WP page and upload the picture afterwards? Thank you. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Plural form
Hi,

Genuinely not trying to be disruptive here; I'm wondering why you say the term "elections" is more common than simply "election"? To me, the prior seems to imply that either multiple elections are taking place on the same day as opposed to a single one and seems more appropriate for elections which either coincide with another on the same day (general elections where both the composition of parliaments and selection of a president are determined), or are held on more than a single day (two-round elections or ones that take place over multiple days). Mélencron (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "elections" is commonly used to refer to a single election both in the media and academic work. This has been discussed a few times before and is why, for instance, many articles start with the title "Federal elections/General elections/Parliamentary elections were held in Fooland on [date]". Cheers, Number   5  7  15:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with that, but I'm not convinced as to how that's necessarily more logical than merely using "election" in most cases, given that the plural form is somewhat less commonly used (from a quick Google test) and that this refers to only a single election. It is admittedly mostly a matter of preference for me. Mélencron (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of logic (as both terms have exactly the same meaning), it's simply down to a choice of terminology. Number   5  7  16:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I'm not going to pursue this further. Mélencron (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain how the German elections work, but in the UK, in some senses, each constituency in a general election is a separate election in its own right. So elections is appropriate. The same applies in many other countries. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * okay....there are two types of electoral methods in Germany's federal elections: First, there's the landwide proportional ones, each voter votes for a party and the seats get divied up that way. Second there's single constituency elections, which are first past the post. Two different elections.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Merkel
I just saw that there had been a previous edit removing Merkel from the infobox, before reverted it. I have just conducted the same action of removing Merkel, unbeknownst to me that this had been contested. Since I have been also reverted (and it seems like this is an issue of contention, or will likely become one), I'm bringing this here.

In my opinion, the infobox depicts party leaders (or candidates, whenever party leaders are not the candidates themselves) at the time of the next election. Current leaders may be presumed to remain at their offices by the time the next election is held for simplicity purposes, but this is not the case when those have explictly announced their resignations/retirements/etc, as in the case of Merkel. Just as a quick comparison, check the situation of Mariano Rajoy at the Next Spanish general election : he remained as nominal party leader after the vote of no confidence and until Casado's election, but he had already announced his retirement. His removal was uncontested. I think it is much more informative for readers to show when a party leader is going to vacate the post ahead of the next election, rather than maintaining him/her until he/she effectively quits the office, unless there is actual evidence they may reverse their decisions. Impru 20 talk 15:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
, I think we should make it clearer that Olaf Scholz is not the leader of the SPD in the infobox. He is explicitly listed as the party's leader at the moment which could easily confuse people. While there is a note under the section for "leader since", most readers will likely easily miss something like this. Also, just because something is not done elsewhere on Wikipedia does not make something wrong to do so. I'm sure I've seen a specific rule mentioning this and have had it brought up to me a few times. Helper201 (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is already a footnote explaining exactly that. Cannot see where the problem is, though I do see a number of problems with your proposal. No, just because something is not done elsewhere in Wikipedia does not make something wrong, but it constitutes a fairly good evidence of it not being a particularly "right" thing to do. Cheers.  Impru 20 talk 00:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the footnote but most non-Wikipedia editors will be statistically unlikely to check this. For example see MOS:OVERLINK, most links on a page are not clicked on, its unlikely most non-editors will highlight over this to see the correction in the false statement that is made above. What is the disadvantage in making this clearer and more explicit? It only serves as an advantage to make what is correct to be as clearly visible, explicit and as easily accessible as possible to the largest number of readers. I'm not saying it necessarily has to be in the manner I enacted. Helper201 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "most readers will likely easily miss something like this" "most non-Wikipedia editors will be statistically unlikely" These sentences constitute, basically, the core of your argument, but, can you actually back this up with some evidence of this actually happening? Footnotes are used VERY widely in Wikipedia, and so far there's no sign of editors (except for you) having trouble reading/using them. I'm fairly sure a footnote is much more better than an out-of-place piece of text in an infobox.  Impru 20 talk 06:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If the infobox is meant to display the candidate for chancellor, why not just change the parameter in the infobox from "leader" to "candidate". Number  5  7  09:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . As I said, see the amount of people that click links for example via MOS:OVERLINK, which is evidenced with statistics. The parameter is the main issue like Number 57 said, as it currently states something which is factually incorrect. "... so far there's no sign of editors (except for you) having trouble reading/using them", you know this, how? Non-editors will self-evidently not report on such matters and others may have experienced this but just not reported, or reported it but it just happens that you have not seen it. As I said, I am open to other ways around this, it doesn't have to be the manner I first implamented. I have identified the problem and would appreciate you being open to a solution of some sort. WP:COMPROMISE. Helper201 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not against changing the parameter, but at no point was that what you suggested,, nor anything even close or related to it. That said, I cannot grasp why such a drama is mounted out of an apparent inability or unwillingness to read a simple and straightforward footnote.  Impru 20 talk 18:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is not yet solved. Leader should refer to the party leader, hence SPD needs Esken/Nowabo. Chancellor canditate may be added but will remain empty for all but C/S/Green. Top candidate (Spitzenkandidat) would be a concept that fits all parties. Leader's seat is a concept not relevant for Germany, should be deleted. Nillurcheier (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is how I've been handling the leader/lead candidate issue on the pages for upcoming state elections. I initially list the party leaders in the infobox, and add lead candidates as they are announced, with a footnote explaining the distinction. When a majority of the parties in the infobox have selected their lead candidates, I change the parameter from "leader" to "candidate", and add a footnote to any remaining leaders explaining such. It's a minor issue, and only relevant during the pre-campaign period when the parties haven't all selected their lead candidates yet. Also, when people come to the page, they're probably more interested in who will be leading the party in the election, rather than who the party chairpersons are. I think the best balance is what we have now - showing lead candidates where possible, and leaders where not. Erinthecute (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to the infobox to display coalitions
Currently, the main infobox doesn't include any information about outgoing/resulting coalition governments, only the outgoing/resulting head of government. While it's all well and good to know that Angela Merkel has been Chancellor after the last four elections, it's just as important to know that three of those have been with the SPD and one with the FDP. With the federal government likely to change configuration again after this year's election, but with the Union still at its head, this is a pretty prescient issue. The main infobox is meant to be a summary of the key points of an election, and the resulting government is among the most important pieces of information. As it stands, readers need to explore the article further to find anything about that.

I'm proposing a small change to the bottom section of the infobox to accommodate this. If implemented, this should be applied to all going back to 1949 for the sake of consistency, which is a big enough change that I thought it was worth seeking consensus first. I also have a couple proposals, so feedback on what exact form this should take would be appreciated. I'll be using a hypothetical scenario for the upcoming federal election to demonstrate the effect the change would have.

First, the current format. It displays only the name of the Chancellor and their affiliation. There is no way to tell that the composition of the government has changed – a reader has to explore the page to find that information. Casual readers may assume that the government is essentially unchanged, even if there have been substantial changes. It's also important to note that the current practice is for Chancellors from the Union be denoted as "CDU/CSU" in the bottom section, not listing their specific party. It's a moot point at the moment since there have never been any CSU Chancellors, but this could change in the (near) future.

My first proposal is only a small change. The Chancellor's party is shifted from the "before/after party" line to the same line as their name, and the bottom line instead lists the composition of the government, with member parties separated by an en dash. Party names are abbreviated and hyperlinked on both lines. This achieves the goal of showing which parties are in government, while retaining the purpose of the bottom section as it currently stands. In addition, the Chancellor's party on the first line would be specific, allowing CDU and hypothetical CSU Chancellors to be distinguished from each other.

The second proposal is a little bit more of a departure from the current format. The bottom section now specifies the Government, hyperlinking to the Cabinet of Germany page, rather than the Chancellor. Instead of the Chancellor's name, the "before/after election" line links to the outgoing and resulting Cabinets. Since German cabinet page titles are formatted to include the Chancellor's name, this still names the Chancellor, if indirectly. The "before/after_party" line is the same as the first proposal.

I don't have a particular preference for either of these. The first proposal is closer to the current format, but doesn't exactly specify that the second line refers to the composition of the government. The second proposal is much clearer in that regard, but changes the focus of the bottom section from Chancellor to Government.

Sorry this ran a little bit long, but the idea is pretty simple. Let me know what you think. Erinthecute (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been a week so I've implemented the second proposal on this page. I'll expand it to the rest of the election pages after a couple days if there are no objections. Erinthecute (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary data in the infobox
German election infoboxes tend to be quite bulky with a lot of information. The 2017 election infobox is an obvious example - it's quite overwhelming and it can be difficult to parse what's important and what's not, especially for a less informed viewer. With the election coming up, a lot of eyes are going to be on this page, and the infobox could really do with slimming down to exclude superfluous information. There are two particular data points that in my opinion are pretty much irrelevant and could be removed without issue.

Firstly, the "leader since" line is essentially useless. Since lead candidates are often not the actual leaders of the party, these dates usually correspond to the announcement or formal selection of the candidates for the election itself. To tell the average viewer that Olaf Scholz was selected as SPD lead candidate in August 2020 is essentially meaningless. It says nothing about his senior role within the SPD which stretches back years, and if anything serves to mislead by suggesting that he's a relative newcomer. The same can be said for Bartsch of the Left or even Weidel of the AfD. The distinction between leader and lead candidates also means that footnotes are required to clarify which in itself is a headache for readers, especially in the case of dual candidacies.

Secondly, the "leaders' seat" line. This is potentially even less useful than "leader since" as the lead candidates are always at the top of their respective state lists and thus all but guaranteed to enter the Bundestag. Their specific constituency or state is of very little consequence. This is also the most space-filling of any data point in the infobox thanks to the long names of the constituencies and state party lists combined with dual candidacies. At standard resolution, the 2017 infobox dedicates eight whole lines of text just to listing names of the leaders' various constituencies and states, wasting space and distracting from the more important data around it. There are also a copious number of footnotes listing the constituencies each leader ran in unsuccessfully (or is running in, if pre-election), which adds a great degree of visual clutter and provides very little relevant information - especially now that we have dedicated results pages with a section for leaders' races.

In my view there's very little reason to keep these two lines, and removing them would go a long way to slimming down what are already some of the lengthiest election infoboxes on the site, improving readability. I'll leave this here for a few days and go ahead if there are no objections. Erinthecute (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The leaders' seat section might not be important for most of the candidates, but that doesn't mean it may be in some cases. Kohl losing his seat in 1998 was seen as dramatic, Laschet might lose election on the list this year and the "leaders' seat" in the case of Baerbock and Scholz, who are both running in the Potsdam-PM constituency, has received a lot of press coverage. It is also noteworthy for the fact that some leaders come from and run in East Germany. Or the fact that on 4 (Strauß, Rau, Lafontaine, Stoiber) occasions, a leader did not accept their mandate. As far as "leader since" goes, it is actually very important because otherwise you would think that Scholz was SPD leader or Schröder was SPD leader in 1998. The fact that Scholz isn't SPD leader has become quite the important topic and therefore it makes sense to mention it in the infobox. In addition, I don't think a long infobox is not necessarily less readable. KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the infobox is to be a concise explanation of the results. I don't think listing of the direct mandates warrants inclusion since it's bordering on trivia in many cases, especially considering the amount of screen space it takes up compared to vastly more important information like seats, votes, swings, etc. As for the "leader since", in the 2021 election the lead candidates are denoted as "candidates", so it's actually the inclusion of the "leader since" value that causes confusion here (and "leader's seat", for that matter). For previous elections listing "leader", "leader since", and "leader's seat", there is clearly a very strong impression that the lead candidates are the leaders until you check the footnotes. Swapping out "leader" with "candidate" and removing "leader since" and "leader's seat" would solve this. Erinthecute (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Erin on this. A party leader losing their seat is important, but is the kind of thing that should be in the text of the introduction – it doesn't need to be in the infobox, nor does how long a leader has been in office. Number   5  7  11:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox reflinks
The version as I proposed it is in use in the 2019 Canadian federal election page, in fact, it is an exact copy for the exact same situation. Putting the information that the leader won the seat, but is not the incumbent, is not as important as that the leader lost the seat and hence, it makes sense to include it in a refnote. If the leader lost his/her seat, spelling it out in italics right around the seat is more appropriate because in most cases, it is more dramatic and otherwise it would contradict the category of "leaders seat" - that seat would not be the leaders seat, but someone others. KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Official results of the 2021 election
The official results of the 2021 election will be published here on election day (26 September) at 6 pm (18:00). Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is wrong. The first projections were published at 6 pm, not the official results. --82.207.237.220 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps,it would be more accurate if I said "official preliminary results" instead. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Results
Could someone post the preliminary results (make a subsection at the end of the article)? Both for the general and the regional elections that took place. --79.140.150.206 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no deadline (see WP:NODEADLINE); so that should absolutely wait until we at least have the complete preliminary results (there's still about 25 seats for which these are not available - notably the whole of Berlin (link here)). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think we could make the link to the results website more visible. Otherwise I agree. Gust Justice (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The official website is here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Now release that the preliminary results will be given at 5:45 German time (half hour from now) - ; so that should solve the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Seat distribution
The seat distribution of the 20th Bundestag based on the result of this election has just been posted on the official website, so I have updated the infobox accordingly. RyanW1995 (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Confusing colours
The two blue colours of the CSU and AfD are very similar and they are placed next to each other in the graphic showing the make up of the 735 seats. May I suggest either modifying the two blue colours slightly to make them more distinct, or else moving the CSU to the other side of the CDU, or even showing the CSU/CDU as one block, not next to the other, but with one above the other (ie, inner rings and outer rings). Nick Barnett (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a better picture, using the same colors as the 2017 election diagram. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Picture change of Armin laschet and Olaf Scholz

 * So what is there to discuss about implementing more recent pictures, if those pictures have the same quality? Time of Use of those older pictures is IMO not an argument to use older pictures even further. PS: I have updated the introducing-pictures of those two politicians in their wiki-biografies aswell. LennBr (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, both images are the lead images in the pages of Armin Laschet and Olaf Scholz. Secondly, both images are long-standing and there is no immediate need of revision but the fact that they are older than the images you suggested. However, they are only older by a year compared to the images you suggested and of a good quality, so in my opinion, WP:BROKE can be applied here. Thirdly, although the current images may not necessarily be of a better quality than the images you suggested, they are better-looking and more fitting. In the photograph of Armin Laschet that you suggested, Laschet's face is partly obscured due to the unfortunate angle in which the photograph was taken. In the current photograph of Laschet, that is not the case. The photograph of Olaf Scholz that you suggested is not an official photograph, unlike the current photograph. Scholz is also not looking at the camera, unlike in the current photograph. Fourthly, although the images you suggested have been taken more recently than the current images,Armin Laschet and Olaf Scholz have not visibly changed, which in my opinion leads to the issue of which photograph has been taken more recently irrelevant. I do therefore propose that the images of Armin Laschet be retained as they are now. Lord Stephenson (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well a lot of wanna-be arguments from you. For the the first two: the fact that a picture is in use is no pro/nor a con argument...its irrelevant, as pictures can be changed by an instant. Also, for living persons the norm is, that pictures of them gets updated eventually. The third "argument" (about good looking) is not more than just a opinion. I for example - and from what I can see from the article history - several other user - wanted to change those pictures. I guess we all wanted to change it, because - at least in Armins case - he doesnt look really beneficial on the photo, that you try to keep in use. Introduction-pictures of politicians are (or at least should be) respresentative at best (for possible state leaders this applies even more). Unfortunately all four pictures are not more than just "snap-shots", with better quality. And if not looking at the camera were an actual argument, you would take that seriously and would not paste a picture, where Armin Laschet doesnt look straight into camera aswell. Now, as I have set this straight, I propose to implement this picture of Armin (both on this election article and on his wiki-biography) and implement the more recent picture of olaf in this and his article, too (as it is not as blurry as the one year older one...that the newer one is not an official one is irrelevant/has no effect). LennBr (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The more recent photo of Scholz, that I try to implement has a better quality (higher resolution), too. The fact that on the picture he is not looking straight into camera doesnt alter the pictures suitability. It is the same with the photo of Anna Lena Bearbock, where she doesnt look straight aswell, but there you dont care about that at all. because you dont make a point here and you know that. so stop it. I will continue reverting if you continue ignoring. LennBr (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * you have been again reverted by a different user (this time by a registered one) regarding your effort to prevent a picture update at the olaf scholz article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olaf_Scholz&type=revision&diff=1046744557&oldid=1046743743&diffmode=source. You then reverted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olaf_Scholz&type=revision&diff=1046745276&oldid=1046744557&diffmode=source. After that an IP reverted you again, you then again told them, there is no consensus. You are not entitled to ignore a majority opinion and simultaneously tell them, that there is no consensus. What kind of a grown up are you? --LennBr (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

SSW in infobox?
According to most projections the SSW looks to win a seat. In case this does happen, should they or should they not be included in the infobox? Gust Justice (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, when it is confirmed. See 2021 Norwegian parliamentary election, the party "Patient Focus" is in the box because they have a seat, while a fair half dozen of parties got more votes without getting a seat. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The SSW should not be included. In fact, I had added them sometime in June. But now, I think that it doesn't really make sense including a minority party that has no influence on the balance of power and likely less than 1 % of the vote in the electionbox. KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be my view as well. Also is the policy followed in 2019 UK election. Gust Justice (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The SSW received just 0.1% of the vote and just 1 seat out of 735. I would follow the example of the 1949 West German federal election and limit the infobox to the six major parties. 2021 Norwegian parliamentary election is, in my view, a bad example to follow as it is a different style of infobox and has no real space limit. JackWilfred (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Map legend colours
Hi all. I really appreciate the work of editors who make colour maps for election results, like. However I would like to point out mainly one thing that is a bit weird to me, namely in the legends of the results map made by Erinthecute and others. I already tried to catch their attention on their talk page unfortunately to no reply, and I already tried to raise the topic on on the 2021 Canadian election talk page (this time the map has been produced by another editor, but has a very similar problem and style of the map legend) again to no reply. I hope I'm lucky this time. The issues I see are the following. This issue involves maps for German, Canadian, and Italian elections and referendums as far as I know (but there can be more), and I think it would be much nicer to see all of them changed similarly to what was done in File:2006_Italian_general_election_-_Vote_Strength.svg. Producing such maps is a skill I would like to learn, but I am currently not technically capable of working on this, and that is why I am asking here. Regarding the German election, I saw this kind of problem in: File:2021_German_federal_election_-_Results_by_state.svg, File:German_Federal_Election_2021_-_Results_by_Constituency_%26_Regional_Seats.svg, File:2017_German_federal_election_-_Results_by_state.svg, File:German_Federal_Election_2017_-_Results_by_Constituency_%26_Regional_Seats.svg, and so on going back in the years. Thank you in advance. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Minor issue: There is probably no need to include the colours for 50+ or 60+ percent results in the map legend if those percentages are never reached in any constituencies by a single party.
 * Major issue: The colour palette used for the 50+ and 60+ results is basically all shades of black, which are really indistinguishable one from the other. What happens if CSU and CDU, or CSU and AfD got each 50+ or 60+ results in two adjacent constituencies? Why can't we have each party colour to tend to a full red or green or blue or whatever in the 50+ cases instead of all tending to a reddish, greenish, blueish shade of black?

Wrong source in Observers section
The source provided in the Observers section refers to the previous election in 2017. It does not contain any information about the 2021 election, so the section should be removed. I cannot do that because I am not logged in. --78.55.212.128 (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2021
"With complex coalition talks required for the formation of a government, the FDP and the Greens are considered kingmakers, and an three-party coalition has been discussed as a likely outcome."

an -> a 165.1.194.41 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021
In the third sentence, please replace "Incumbent Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel" with "Incumbent Chancellor Angela Merkel" because Germany can be assumed to be the domain of the chancellor in question. If there's any concern about confusion between the federal chancellor and chancellors of Berlin or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (since those states are mentioned in the previous sentence), you can change it to "Incumbent Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel" because you'd know this meant the Chancellor of Germany and not the (non-existent) chancellors of the states. 2603:3021:1A04:D800:805A:18DF:65FA:BCAF (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)