Talk:2024 South Korean legislative election

Infobox - continued
Continuing to the discussion now archived, my opinion is that we should adopt an infobox like the one used for Scottish and Welsh elections. Stv59 (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree – they are terrible examples of how to present information concisely. Pretty much all the same core information could be fitted into less than half of the space used by that format (and I would say in a much more readable format), as demonstrated with a hacked version of the current infobox to the right (using Xs as placeholders as the constituency vote figures are not yet provided). Number   5  7  22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I can only agree with Stv59, the infoboxes of many elections (South Korean, Russian, Japanese, Thai, Venezuelan but also French) have been replaced without consensus, so I have decided that without a new consensus I will boldly restore the previous ones. There is no valid reason to keep the current infoboxes, which are completely unsuitable for illustrating the election results. Instead, for an infobox like the one illustrated here, first of all a discussion is needed for its creation, then one on its possible use.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it has been disappointing to see infoboxes switched without consensus. There seems to be rather unyielding advocates of infobox legislative election. I still believe that Scottish and Welsh examples probably work best (better spacing), but the one Number 57 suggesting here is an improvement to the current one on the article. Stv59 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Equally, there are unyielding advocates of infobox election, and I have been disappointed over the years by the level of resistance to changing infoboxes that IMO do not present information in a concise or legible manner. Infobox election was designed for presidential or two-party elections and IMO is not fit for purpose for multi-party elections for several reasons, the main ones being including large pictures of party leaders (for an election where people are voting for parties not individuals) and the three-column layout, both of which are an extremely inefficient use of space.
 * The example to the right is similar to the French/Spanish language infoboxes, which are row-based and can fit the information in in a much more efficient manner. Number   5  7  20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The example shown here is certainly a step forward, but creating a new infobox would require a broader discussion or RFC. Pending this, the previous infoboxes will have to be restored, since the Infobox legislative election clearly cannot remain for the aforementioned elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Stv59 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No issues with the proposal for discussion, but the claim that the previous infoboxes "will have to be restored" is not correct. There is no requirement to do anything unless there is a consensus to do so. Number   5  7  20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There has certainly never been consensus on the use of Infobox legislative election, and since this is surely inadequate for these elections, the restoration becomes necessary.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are aware that this is not how Wikipedia works. The infoboxes were changed as a bold edit, no-one objected and it became the stable version, which then needs consensus to change to another format. Number   5  7  21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, there are those who opposed your changes and you still restored your infobox. In this discussion the dissent has become evident, therefore as soon as possible the previous versions in the aforementioned elections will have to be restored, because the current infoboxes are clearly inadequate (and the fact that you have proposed a new type of infobox is proof of this). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the current one is fine and proposed the alternative as a compromise. Number   5  7  21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait, are you saying that you can WP:BOLD the infoboxes, but other people bold-editing the infoboxes isn't acceptable? Isn't that just unfair? Stv59 (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He's done this several times and then uses those to establish "precedent" for people reverting his edits. Denmark, France, SK, Japan, etc. River10000 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally support a revert to TIE here, as not only do all 9 parties elected fit within the TIE structure, but you could also have it reduced to 5 easily, as 4 of those parties were in alliance with a major one, as has been done on other wiki pages on French elections. CainNKalos (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue is the Progressive Party (South Korea, 2017) won a district in FPTP, and formally ran against the Democratic Party in other FPTP districts. I'm thinking they should probably be included separately with an alliance ticker, so that's six parties? River10000 (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to that idea. I don't follow the intricacies of South Korean politics too much, but it seemed the main reasons for having TILE (large number of major parties, a proportional system, etc.) didn't seem to be fulfilled here, so hence the support for a TIE reversion. I'm happy with whatever you end up deciding. CainNKalos (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you say. It's not like we haven't addressed these kind of issues in TIE before, and previous SK articles seem to make a good use of combining both constituency and proportional results to give a pretty summarized overall picture (if anything, I am more concerned by the fact that we don't seem to have constituency popular vote results yet. Why?). The alliance field is there for things like this one. Altenatively, just group the totals for the two main alliances together (even if the main concern was that the PP formally ran against the DP in some FPTP districts, the current TILE set up does not actually solve that, since it's basicaly the same as you propose but in the TILE table setup).  Impru 20 talk 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am going to go ahead and suggest we use this, then. River10000 (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with River10000, this is the model that must be used for all elections with a mixed electoral system (PR and constituency).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Complete support here. Looks great to me! CainNKalos (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the format drafted above by can be implemented as a template, I would support that – I think it has very good potential as an analogy to the widely-used Spanish election results template and would be appropriate particularly in mixed-vote systems. Until then, I support the usage of the Scottish/Welsh format as proposed by . Erinthecute (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@ValenciaThunderbolt: Can you show me where the consensus is for the current infobox with no results? It's just terrible. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look at the top of the page, you'll see that there is an archive page in the template. The consensus is small, but it best represents the info that we have, as only PR seat votes have been published (for some odd reason). If you oppose it and would rather have TIE, I'd rather it be like the Scottish TIE, as it is clearer than other formats I've seen for two rounds/const. and PR seats elections. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There has been a clearly established consensus, newer, in the form of the infobox on the right. Everyone here has agreed to it, and it is newer. There's no need to repeatedly change back to the old TILE format which is heavily incomplete. River10000 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ValenciaThunderbolt I know the archived discussion, since I participated in it too, and I don't see the consensus for TILE without results. Of course the reference model for this type of election is the Scottish one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The figures for Const. seats aren't confirmed. They come from Namuwiki, right ? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am reading the archived consensus, and I cannot find where the consensus for TILE is (actually, 1) there are more complains about it than actual support; 2) it was not even a proper RfC; 3) It's duplicated, why is it duplicated?). There's quite more consensus in the present (and newer) discussion than the one found in the archive.  Impru 20 talk 14:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Const. votes, as there is no confirmation of them, and I've removed the bottom three parties, as only those above 5% were represented before I started changing them from TIE to TILE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this until official Constituency numbers are found. Thank you. River10000 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)