User talk:Humongous125/Archive 1

Results tables
Hello. Just an FYI, template-based results tables are gradually being deleted as (a) templates shouldn't exist if they only have one transclusion and (b) they are more prone to vandalism (due to fewer watchers) than articles. I was planning to nominate these ones for deletion once all removed.

The specific templates in question are also not great because they are incomplete (several cells with "?" which the hardcoded table had actually filled), there's no need to repeat the party leaders in the results table when it's already elsewhere in the article, and the formatting is quite poor (different colour cell edges etc). Could you reinstate the hardcoded tables (which were in many cases actually the original results table in the article)? Cheers, Number   5  7  21:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, also worth noting some of the Icelandic ones have already been deleted (see this discussion, where it notes that the hardcoded format is "much cleaner"). Cheers, Number   5  7  21:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Number 57, I was about to message you on your talk page. The infobox at the top is a quick summary of the election whereas the results table is a detailed summary, outlining all parties and their respective leader (not just the ones in the infobox), vote and seat swings etc. Many election pages have this format. 2002 German federal election for example. I am in the process of modifying the base template for more adaptable use and better formatting and plan to eventually have just 1 template for all Icelandic elections. I am also not wanting to lose the information on the individual tables in the event they are deleted for not being used (I know there is a process for deletion but I don't wish to go through the hastle of trying to stop it). Sorry if im misunderstanding but these templates are the original tables and have been on these articles for years, I'm not replacing original stuff. Humongous125 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If they are deleted, the information is not lost as admins (like myself) can still view the code that was deleted, so you don't have to worry about that (although I'm not sure why it's an issue?). And with regards to what I meant above, the hardcoded tables were in the articles in the past (many years ago) – that's where I recovered the code from.
 * Going back to the main subject at hand, the leaders don't need to be in the results table, as they are not part of the results (they aren't in the German example you mention). If it's an issue that they are only listed in the infobox, then we can add the information into the body of the article like at 2017 Icelandic parliamentary election. The vast majority of the Icelandic election articles use the hardcpded format (although colours haven't been added to all of them yet), so that's really what we should be standardising on (particularly as templates shouldn't be used as per the above). I'm willing to compromise by adding the vote swing to the hardcoded tables (which means they will march the German example you cited) and a section detailing the party leaders as per the 2017 article, if that will resolve the issue. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The result box I am aiming to create for Icelands election pages is based on 1997 Irish general election which is a nice clean template but allowing an easy change between the bicameral and unicameral elections. Germany was a bad example, another example 1997 United Kingdom general election. All these election pages use some sort of template. I personally don't get the point of that extra table as all that information is regarding the previous election and should be on its respective results table. I also don’t think that table is appropriate for every article when adding an extra column to the results for the leaders would have been easier and less cluttered. I have already spent abit of time editing the base template and was planning on completing the work in the next couple of weeks. If that is not agreeable to use templates at all anymore, would the basis of the Irish election result table be agreeable? Humongous125 (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's appropriate as it still has the party leaders in it (and also the vote and percentage columns are after the seats, which isn't normal practice). As I said, I'd be happy to compromise by adding the swing column to the hardcoded tables, but the Irish one is not a compromise, it's basically a slightly tweaked version of the template versions. Number   5  7  11:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, I'd also advise not wasting time on templates for election results tables. It has crossed my mind many times over the years to try and design one (I've been writing election articles for well over a decade), but elections vary so wildly, it's simply not feasible. The best thing to do is to settle on an agreed hardcoded format and apply that across all articles. Number   5  7  12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you be able to direct me to where it is advised templates are being phased out as results tables as many pages I have visited have templates for the results table?

To get to an agreeable position I have created a table with the 1991 Icelandic parliamentary election. (This is the style and formatting I was aiming for with the templates) As its a bicameral election it'll be the biggest table. The 2017 election article is the only one with that has the extra table as you have described, therefore I propose that the tables in all other articles have leaders in an extra column. The elections 2003-2013, particularly the 2013 results table have a comprehensive list of parties with their respective leaders that contested the election. That information would be lost with the format you suggested. I therefore propose that up to the 2016 election; instead of creating extra tables, the results tables includes the leaders column and from 2017 onward; where that extra table is included, the leaders column is excluded? Humongous125 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this set of TfD discussions.
 * The leaders column is a complete no-no for me I'm afraid. Results tables need to be kept as simple as possible and party leaders is not something that is needed to convey the results (and in virtually all cases, all the listed leaders are already available to readers in the infobox). There are also two significant problems with adding this column to tables; firstly it makes tables too wide for many pages, which means they end up squashed and single rows end up being spread over multiple rows. Secondly, in many cases it won't be possible to fill them as it will be difficult to source the leaders of minor parties historically. Although it is done for a tiny number of countries, the leader is not included in results tables in the vast majority of cases and is not standard practice. Again, I'll suggest a compromise of adding the swing column; keeping both is not a compromise. Number   5  7  18:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the 2013 election already had a section listing the participating parties. All that had to be done was note their respective leaders too. Number   5  7  19:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have compromised in creating the table below instead of a template, which you said was an issue due to vandalism etc. I have also compromised in suggesting we could remove the leaders column from the 2016 election onward as that information is already given in a dedicated table.


 * To your first point, the table in 2017 that you referred to spreads over multiple rows in a normal computer screen, it does so much more on a mobile, so that point is not relevant.


 * Please refer to 2009 Icelandic parliamentary election and 2013 Icelandic parliamentary election. For example in 2009 if that column is deleted as you are suggesting, then the information showing the Chairpersons who led their respective parties, Guðjón Arnar Kristjánsson and Ástþór Magnússon, through the 2009 election would be gone as it is not in the infobox. The infobox is about the summary of the article and it is for the contents of the article (results table) to expand on that info. It is not to replace information in the article.


 * Refer to Help:Infobox "Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they (generally) only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox."

I also propose that if the majority of party leaders that led their parties through the election cannot be found then the column in that page can be excluded, but if that information is readily available, as is the case for 1991-2013 elections, then we should include it. I would also propose as a further compromise that the Icelandic Translation for the party name can be excluded as a further to reduce the width of the table if that is a concern. Hope this is agreeable. Humongous125 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The table/template thing is a straightforwards case of single use templates not being appropriate, not an issue that is up for discussion/compromise. And the 2016 election onwards don't even have the column! The 2009 article can easily be amended to mention the leaders in the 2009 Icelandic parliamentary election section. I am not going to be convinced that a leaders column is acceptable, so no solution that includes one will be agreeable from my perspective. Number   5  7  19:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not an Admin so I cannot see that debate you reference. Humongous125 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The link above is directly to the TfD discussion. What you cannot see is the template (which has been deleted). Number   5  7  19:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So your going to create a completely different table, with a list of all contesting parties and their leaders and the clutter that creates to the article, just because you don't want to add an extra column?
 * Again, that is not setting out guidelines on Wikipedias policy of not using templates for election resultsHumongous125 (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In most cases it's unnecessary because no information is being removed from the article, but this is common for election articles to have such a table, as you can see at 2020 Israeli legislative election or November 2019 Spanish general election.
 * I don't really understand what you mean by your second point, but as the TfDs linked to show that single use templates (which these are) are not deemed appropriate and are readily deleted without debate. Do you think I'm lying to you about this? I came to your talk page in good faith to try and stop you wasting time creating templates that would be deleted. I've given the same advice to numerous other editors in recent years, e.g. here, here, here etc, where the help was positively received. Number   5  7  20:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Lets not use that word as I'm suggesting no such thing. The reason I am questioning is because I am confused why the templates for Iceland's elections are being deleted, whereas there is still a majority of pages that use them and are edited by other Admins that have been on wiki as long as yourself. But I took that point hence creating the template-less table below so we could discuss. Note I removed the Icelandic name which has reduced the width. In the Unicameral elections, which is 1995 onward, the table will be even less wide.

For your point about those tables, if the information is already there why are we wanting to remove it if it means creating an extra long table, again I refer to 2013s list. It would also mean in pages where there is little content there would be 2 big tables whereas 1 would suffice if we just added an extra column. I have already mentioned that we could remove the leadership column if that table already exists and we could apply it to elections 2017 and forward. You mentioned that each election is different, so on that basis, because the 2017 election and some other election articles have those tables, doesn't mean it is appropriate for all election articles to have an extra table and falls under Other stuff exists.

What I am proposing isn't new, been around for over a decade, many election pages still have that simple column and it keeps the article simple and reduces the number of tables which can sometimes be confusing. Humongous125 (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only that, those tables you refer to are actually wider than the table below, so doing this out of saving width is not too relevant. Please see comparison below Humongous125 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There were a lot of templates created before people realised it wasn't a good idea, so it's taking a long time to delete them all – people tend to them in spurts and every so often a massive batch is done (like here).
 * The 2013 article already had a list of parties (now with their leaders), so there is nothing to add to the article. For the other articles, there are at most seven leaders identified, so it's not going to be a huge addition.
 * With regards to the suggestion this is a common feature, I have just under 6,000 election articles on my watchlist that use a range of layouts of results tables, but very few of them have a leaders column (similarly, it isn't the case that most articles use a template; the majority use a hardcoded table).
 * Finally, there is a difference between tables that are mostly text and ones with mostly numbers. Text-related tables often have cells split over multiple rows (the examples you cite below already have) so it isn't much of an issue for them to grow a few more. When you're trying to read a table of mostly numbers, it becomes more of a problem. Number   5  7  21:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but your argument that tables which contain numbers cannot contain too much text is weak. Lets be honest, its easy to read and creating extra tables to save just 1 column is illogical, wasteful and cluttered. You mention you watch 6000 election articles (I'm no spring chicken, note I have edited wiki (primarily elections) for nearly 7 years), so incase you missed I refer you to Other stuff exists, then you would note that because 6000 pages has set a 'precedent', it doesn't mean it has to be that way for all pages. Your even explaining that some of these pages you watch include the leader. I have compromised in not using a template, I have compromised in removing the icelandic name, I have suggested that the leaders column could be excluded from early election if the leaders cannot be found for that year and I have compromised in suggesting that the 2017 election onward could follow the format you suggest. Your only compromise is the percentage swings, which is pretty normal on many election articles. It therefore seems that there hasn't been a meet in the middle scenario that has been agreeable. I therefore suggest that if you cannot be convinced here, then this discussion should take place on a forum with more participants. Humongous125 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will start a discussion for election-related editors at WT:E&R on whether the column is necessary. With regards to the template issue, that wasn't a matter of compromise, it was an FYI. This really shouldn't have resulted in several days of arguing. Also, claiming that you compromised by not changing existing tables is laughable. Number   5  7  19:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lang may yer lum reek Humongous125 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)