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 30 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

If feel like the Campaign subsection is too much about the discussions around RRG/"red scare". These is nothing wrong with the content itself, but I feel like that was only an issue brought up the the CDU/CSU during the final stretches of the campaign and large parts were around other issues, namely the candidates and scandals surrounding them, the Hochwasser etc. KamikazeMatrix26Juni (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croppped

Uncropped

@Number 57 and ValenciaThunderbolt:

Hi; you began a conversation involving me and German federal election infoboxes on User talk:Number 57, but I'd prefer to discuss this on an article talk page, not a user talk page.

My pronouns are he/him.

My position is this as far as the German Federal election infoboxs go:

• CSS cropping is becoming the norm on most election infoboxs that use images; for example 2021 Canadian federal election, 2020 New Zealand general election, 2019 United Kingdom general election. As Number57 knows from past interactions, while 160x120 is typically the standard I use (because that's what I widely saw employed before me), I'm willing to alter it and I have offered many times to change it if a comprise can be found if there's an objection. I am not a "difficult editor"; I have a strong view on infoboxes and so does Number57, those views just happen to clash. I'm happy to use other sizes if the width of the infobox is a concern, but I would prefer not to use a size so small that it results in gaps between the images. Number57, please take particular note of that last sentence; For me it has never been about enforcing 160x120 as the default size; I care far more about not leaving gaps between the images than I do about a standardised image size.
• However, as it happens, going by the edit history of articles such as 2013 German federal election and many others, the default size of German federal articles was always 160x in height. This only changed in December 2022 when Number57 "compacted" them. Therefore I consider what I did a return to the height on German federal election infoboxes that existed for years (decades?) until December 2022.

So, my reasons for my edits are:

• CSS cropping is becoming the standard for infoboxes when images are used
• I'm using the same height that was there before on German federal election infoboxes
• As visually demonstrated in the two images attached here, when CSS cropping is employed all the images become uniform in size/ratio. I believe it looks highly unprofessional when the images are not cropped and those gaps exist between them.
• As visually demonstrated in the two images attached here, when CSS cropping is employed all the images match the length of the party colour bar directly below them. I believe it looks highly unprofessional when these two elements do not match up.

ValenciaThunderbolt, could you offer some reason why you believe the uncropped version to be better? Your edits simply stated "better", which didn't give any view into your rationale. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Number57, you've mentioned the overall width of the infobox as a concern previously, however, if we look at the two attached images they are identical in width. Using CSS cropping does not seem increase to the overall width of the infobox, at least in this case. I think infobox width is more affected by map size than it is CSS cropping size. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true to say CSS cropping is becoming the standard. I have thousands of election articles on my watchlist and you are pretty much the only person doing it. I use it very occasionally (when there is only a landscape photo of someone that needs cropping to fit the infobox), but other than that, it is not widely used.

Also, the comparison screenshots you are using are misleading as they don't show proper implementation of the uncropped images. In the uncropped version the infobox is being forced too wide by (incorrect) use of the leader's seat parameter (the infobox documentation says this should only be used when it is detailed in the article, which it isn't) and an oversized map (forced to 450px). If you remove the parameter and make the map default size, those gaps disappear (and the images are barely noticeably different in size). See this version of the article, where it has been done properly. Cheers, Number 57 17:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the comparison screenshots you are using are misleading as they don't show proper implementation of the uncropped images.

The image captioned "Uncropped" is the version ValenciaThunderbolt implemented. If there's an issue with that version, you didn't mention that previously to ValenciaThunderbolt on User talk:Number 57; you indicated you were happy for them to restore that version, and you didn't mention anything about cutting leader's seats or altering the map size.

If I recall correctly from Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, you opposed the existence of the Leader's Seat parameter entirely in a recent RFC. However, the community voted to retain it, and having done so, the practical fact of the matter is now that it is going to be used in election infoboxes. So while we could say "The uncropped version would work if all the election infoboxes stopped using the leader's seat parameter", that's not very practical or pragmatic because other users are going to fight to include it (just as they have done so in the past, and have currently done). CeltBrowne (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You recall almost correctly – the outcome was to keep the parameter but to update the infobox documentation to say it shouldn't be used unless the information was actually in the article (which it isn't here).

Anyway, what are your views on the version currently being used? No gaps and I personally can't see any difference in sizes between the images. Cheers, Number 57 18:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did so as other election pages don't use CSS. For reasons Number has explained before, it's better to use the legislative election template to express all the parties that have entered parliament, rather than the one widely used. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]