This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Template:Annual readership

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

@Lord Stephenson: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Lord Stephenson: 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)[reply]

@Lord Stephenson: 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)[reply]

@Lord Stephenson: 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)[reply]

According to most projections[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The official website is here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Now release that the preliminary results will be given at 5:45 German time (half hour from now) - [3]; so that should solve the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Nick Barnett:I have uploaded a better picture, using the same colors as the 2017 election diagram. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @RandomCanadian:, the election table isn't ordered on whether the parties "matter" or should be given "prominence". We simply present them ordered by descending votes on the national level, the only ordering which doesn't cause situation with parties being ranked the same, contrary to descending seats. Sometimes, parties win more seats while having less votes. It's a visualisation of the particularities of the voting system, and doesn't make the parties that benefits from it more "worthy" than the others. You can see such gaps in recent election such as 2021 Kosovan parliamentary election, 2020 Slovak parliamentary election or 2020 Taiwanese legislative election, for example.--Aréat (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aréat: It makes no logical sense, both from a perspective of informing the reader (WP:Readers first), and from the perspective of putting the most important information first (parties which are actually represented in parliament), to blindly follow "parties by nationwide vote" as though it were some religious dogma. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, unlike most of those examples, putting the SSW according to nationwide vote would bury them rather too deep in the middle of the table (due to the large number of German parties), making this important information less easily visible (which is bad design). The fact is all of these other parties did not meet any threshold for inclusion, but the SSW are an exceptional [in the litteral sense] party (this is not my opinion: this is a fact of German electoral law, where national minority parties are in effect granted an exception to the threshold) and thus deserves to be treated as an exception. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosovan election page above has minorities seats just as well, including some pretty low in the table. How would you order that without making it a mess? How would you order this one if all four recognised minority had got one seat as well? The SSW isn't "buried" by being several lines below. Showing above all else parties with seats isn't any less a "religious dogma", judging by the inconsistent table it result in. Also, the grey bar is used for "hard threshold", aka election system in which no party can get a seat without being above. Here in Germany, both the minorities as well as any party winning a FPTP seat can get one without reaching the threshold, so it shouldn't be used here
Paging @Davide King: and @Number 57: who thanked me for my earlier reverts.--Aréat (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold being soft (it's actually at least 3 FPTP seats or 5% or minority party) does not mean it doesn't exist. The line is used here to provide visual emphasis. Selectively pinging editors who you suppose agree with you is WP:CANVASS. I don't see any formal guidelines about how to format these tables, so whatever conveys the information to the reader (WP:RF) in the clearest way (the purpose of a table - otherwise we should just write it out in prose if we don't care about the information being clear to the reader) should be used. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, results tables should be ordered by votes, not some double ranking system of seats then votes – having them out of order is what makes no logical sense to me. Number 57 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, I feel that arranging the parties based on the number of votes alone rather than seats (as stated by Number 57) is acceptable. However, this proposal should also be applied to the other articles about post-WW2 German federal elections. I saw that most other Wikipedia articles about federal elections in post-WW2 (West) Germany, except the 1949 West German federal election, use the grey threshold lines in the result table, with the parties that gained seats listed first above the threshold line.

A good example would be the 1990 German federal election (the first federal election after the German reunification). In this election, the Eastern Greens (Alliance 90) and the Western Greens were still two separate parties. The Alliance 90 won 8 seats, while the western Greens lost all of its 42 seats from the 1987 election. Therefore, the Alliance 90 was listed above the western Greens in the result table (above the threshold line). It should also be noted that in this election, the 5% threshold was not applied nationwide, hence two East German parties (the PDS and Alliance 90) managed to win 16 and 8 party list seats respectively, even though they both failed to pass the 5% electoral threshold.

Paging @Number 57:, @RandomCanadian:, and @Aréat: I hope my comments are understandable. Feel free to add your own comments and suggestions. If Number 57's suggestion is accepted, then I would be willing to help you make some necessary edits. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the line should be removed from all articles. Cheers, Number 57 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm talking about, shifting the ordering in the table from votes to seats then to votes again. Ordering by votes alone is consistent, and the 5% threshold being soft mean the line should be removed as parties can very well win seats without being above.--Aréat (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons I stated previously (notably, that this would put the important information in the middle of the table, after some parties which are even more irrelevant than one which managed to gain a single seat); and now due to past similar usage which suggests this seems to have been the informal way to organise the information in the most logical sense, I obviously disagree that either the line should be removed or that we should list by votes when ultimately that is not how the result of the election are assessed (should we also go to US elections and put the winner of the popular vote first even if that doesn't matter? or go to recent Canadian elections and put the Conservatives on top because "they won the popular vote"? You might argue that these are FPTP elections and thus irrelevant; but since the actual result of an election that matters is the people being elected to parliament, and not the percentage of votes a party got - a fact which is true in both FPTP and in the German system, which is not purely proportional, it makes sense to follow that same order). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the US it's the college that does the actual election, so ordering by it make sense. As for Canada, I do think ordering by votes is better for all the reasons already stated above. The tables is there to show the result of the votes and how it is conveyed into seats, not to classify parties by the relevance you assign them. A party with 0,5% of the votes and two seats isn't more worthy than another with 4 % of the votes and zero seats.--Aréat (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"isn't more worthy than another with 4 % of the votes and zero seats" : actually, yes, a party with representation in parliament gets more coverage, is guaranteed a seat at debates for the next election; and actually has a meaningful impact on legislation, unlike the party with zero seats, which is unlikely to get much coverage most of the time. In addition, ordering by seats won (which has implications for the real world) makes far more sense than ordering by vote percentage (something which is entirely irrelevant to the actual functioning of Parliament). That, and also the fact this is how it is consistently ordered in elections where there is a disproportionality between the votes and the seats (see for ex. 2004 Canadian federal elections). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't more worthy on the result tables. Your arguments are valid for the content of the analysis sections or the parliament's pages, not the table showing the votes of the population. As for the consistency, Canada is a distinct outlier, as well as its whole table system, in fact. Remember the different exemples above, out of many countries in which we've been showing voting results by votes and not by votes, seats, seats and votes if there's same number of seats, then votes.--Aréat (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Hungary, Poland, Belarus, Colombia, Mauricia, Antigua, Salvador, Thailand, Guinea Bissau, Solomon Islands, Botswana, Tunisia, Malawi, Australia, Spain, Niger, Burkina Faso, Saint Vincent, Lithuania, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Slovakia and Croatia in recent years. --Aréat (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously don't have time to check through that. How many of these A) use MMP B) have some form of a threshold C) have exceptions to said threshold? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will find the time. The point is that all of them sort by votes, not by seats, which is what we're talking about here.--Aréat (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that none of them are the same circumstances as Germany. Some of these don't use MMP, some don't have a de iure threshold, and of those that do use MMP and have a threshold, how many have an exception allowing parties under the threshold to still get seats? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of them have the same circumstance of sorting by votes even though there is a disproportionality between the votes and the seats, which is what you're arguing against in this discussion. None of your arguments have been about MMP, and I've already provided you an example with minority seats and threshold in Kosovo, remember?--Aréat (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it might be better to start an RfC, because we're at an impasse and your only arguments so far are "this is how it's done at other articles" (an appeal to tradition, which is unsubstantiated with reasons as to why that is a good way to do things) and "but popular vote is more important" (which is subjective opinion and does not appear to scale with either coverage in reliable sources or the actually important metric, which, as in all parliamentary systems, is actual representation in parliament and not "number of votes on election day") RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ask for an example of an existing election table "with an exception allowing parties under the threshold to still get seats", then? Same with claiming that ordering by seats is "how it is consistently ordered in elections where there is a disproportionality between the votes and the seats". Seem dishonest to me to lead the discussion with arguments and then switch to saying it's actually not up to this same discussion to settle the matter when proved otherwise.--Aréat (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I asked for such a list, you provided me with in effect a WP:CITEBOMB, many of which were entirley irrelevant. Additionally, because I was asking for similar examples, but not many of the examples are similar (the only one mildly similar was Kosovo, which has a far simpler table and far more parties which actually got seats so it is definitely not the same situation as Germany in terms of readability and conveying information that actually matters clearly). Due to the fact many of these tables are also far simpler, that makes them sortable, which alleviates many of the concerns one could have. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I really appreciate the work of editors who make colour maps for election results, like Erinthecute. 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.

• 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?

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_&_Regional_Seats.svg, File:2017_German_federal_election_-_Results_by_state.svg, File:German_Federal_Election_2017_-_Results_by_Constituency_&_Regional_Seats.svg, and so on going back in the years. Thank you in advance. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up a couple weeks before the election but it was automatically archived after less than a week, and so got little discussion. I'm bringing it up again because it's still relevant and I believe the issues have only gotten worse now that the election is over.

The election infobox is cluttered and complicated, with a lot of information, not all of which is of high importance. 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 current infobox dedicates six 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 throughout the infobox (eleven right now, of which only one is of any real importance) explaining highly specific details such as the constituencies each leader ran in unsuccessfully, 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. Erinthecute (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]