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]

Images at 130-pixel height and CSS cropped

Images at 130-pixel height and uncropped

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

I'm happy to acknowledge that this version is a significant improvement on this previous version, however, I don't understand why the CSS cropping needs to be stripped out instead of altered. As demonstrated in these two attached images, we can still reduce the size of the images down to 130x in height like you want, but if we retain the CSS cropping we can achieve a perfect result instead of a close-enough one. As we can see in the comparison, both image2's and image4's ratios are not properly 4:3, they're thinner than the other images and this leaves gaps that are not uniform with the rest of the infobox. If we just leave the CSS cropping in and alter it to 130x98, instead of stripping it every time, this doesn't occur.

An additional bonus of leaving the CSS cropping in is that even if an image is replaced, and a new image is inserted, the CSS cropping will make sure the new image is perfectly sized regardless of its actual ratio. While I always use either a 4:3 or a 3:2 ratio when cropping portraits on the Commons, this is far from universally the case. Particularly for old images (which particularly affects old election infoboxes), ratios can vary wildly. However, if we leave CSS cropping in, this is never really an issue.

Can we meet halfway here so that you can have the size of images that you want while I get the uniformity of spacing I want via CSS cropping? I'm speaking in general; not just this article. I.E. in future, if you have an issue with the size of the images, you alter the CSS cropping to your preferred sizing of 130x98 rather than stripping it out entirely. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re if an image is replaced, and a new image is inserted, the CSS cropping will make sure the new image is perfectly sized it doesn't work like that because the new image may be a significantly different size. I've seen IPs inserting new images into existing cropping code and it goes horribly wrong because the zoom is too much or too little. Anyway, if you do want to use css, can you just crop them to whatever the size already is (which will usually be the default x150)?

But what could be a better solution – why not recrop the image on Commons (which you have free reign to do)? That will be far more effective than using cropping code as it will apply to all the other articles where those images appear (and many images appear in multiple election infoboxes). It looks like the changes you are making here are only slight, so I can't see it being an issue to make these small adjustments on commons. Making the original images the right size on commons would save a lot of hassle. Number 57 11:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why not recrop the image on Commons (which you have free reign to do)?

Well firstly that's a blade that cuts both ways, I can simply turn that question back on yourself and ask why don't you (re)crop images on the Commons to get this right. I'm already doing the work of cropping images using one technique, while as far as I'm aware you don't really adjust images on average, you use the image_size parameter and whatever result it generates, that's where you leave it, even if the images have incorrect ratios.

But to answer the question directly; It takes significantly more time to individually crop images on the Commons with the crop tool than it does using CSS cropping. Typically all I have to do to insert CSS cropping into an infobox is copy and paste the code down the line and then cut and copy the existing images into it.

Using CSS cropping, I could, on average, get an entire infobox done in 40 seconds. Individually (re)cropping multiple images manually can take several minutes. Doing it that way, particularly if I'm doing a number of infoboxes all at once, is multiplying the workload many times over.

I'll give an example of that; 2011 Slovenian parliamentary election's infobox right now is a mess of images of all differing ratios. I could fix that in literally 30 seconds using CSS cropping. If I have go down the line and crop every image, I could be 15 minutes. One of factors that makes manual cropping so much more work intensive is that I have to manually find the centre of the image visually, whereas with CSS cropping that process is reduced to simple mathematics.

Also, you brought up "noobs" getting things wrong using the CSS method, but 2011 Slovenian parliamentary election's infobox is all done the "traditional" and "accessible" method of setting the images to be 150x150 yet it's still extremely poorly executed. Both methods are susceptible to "noobs", I don't either can claim high ground there.

Additionally, it's not always possible to further crop some images in use, especially if they're low resolution. For example, let's take File:Natsuo Yamaguchi.jpg which is currently used in 2021 Japanese general election. It's actually already a 4:3 ratio image, but it's very low resolution, and there doesn't appear to be a higher resolution version of the image at source. So I can't really "hard" adjust that image. Nevertheless, it's in the 2021 Japanese general election right now, but it's too thin and is causing gaps. However, I could fix that with a "soft" adjust using CSS cropping (by simply increasing base) if people were not averse to the use of CSS cropping.

So I'll ask again; can we please each come halfway so that you can have the size of images that you want while I get the uniformity of spacing I want via CSS cropping? CeltBrowne (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recrop them because (a) the current sizes genrally don't bother me and (b) I don't know what size is being aimed for. I'm also not really convinced that it takes so much longer to download the image, crop it in Paint and then reupload it? I regularly have do redo football club crests and it doesn't take long at all.

If you crop images and don't mess about with the size, then I'm not going to revert you, but I remain of the view it's a waste of code. The sooner we get rid of infobox images for parliamentary elections the better; it's bizarre that for parliamentary elections, the main thing in the infobox is photos of individuals. Cheers, Number 57 12:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you crop images and don't mess about with the size, then I'm not going to revert you

I don't want to have debate this issue so I'm going to finish on this question; earlier in this thread you said the default image size is 150 pixels in height. Mathematically, to get a 4:3 ratio from 150 pixels in height would mean 113 pixels in width. Yes or No; in future if I use CSS cropping and use 150x113 as the image size, is that getting reverted? CeltBrowne (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you not to change the height size from what currently exists. If the article uses the default size (which is 150px), keep it at that. If the article has a smaller setting (like 130x130px), keep the height at 130px. Number 57 13:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you not to change the height size from what currently exists.

I actually would be open to agreeing to do that except for the fact I know that you yourself have not kept to that piece of etiquette. Between 2013 and 2022, almost all the post-WW2 German Federal election image sizes were 160x and then you "compacted" them to 130x around mid to late 2022.

You can't ask people to observe an etiquette you yourself have bypassed.

If it would be "wrong" for me to change 130x to 150x, isn't wrong for you to have changed 160x to 130x? CeltBrowne (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one that proposed this arrangement ("you can have the size of images that you want while I get the uniformity of spacing I want via CSS cropping"), so I'm not sure why you're quibbling now I've agreed to it. Number 57 14:51, 3 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]