![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I am merely trying to change the title of the election infobox from "Taiwan presidential election" to "Republic of China (Taiwan) presidential election" which is the official name of the respected country and its election (See the inaugural address of President Tsai Ing-wen on May 20, 2016 [1]), but it keeps being disruptively reverted by User:Number 57 based on no reason rather than a consensus only agreeing on "Taiwan" being used in the title of the article instead of "ROC" but nothing on the content of the article (see [2]). Now not only did User:Number 57 erase the official name on the name of the infobox, he also erased the official term "Republic of China" by removing it from the lead section (See [3]).
In order to stop User:Number 57's reverts (see [4] [5] [6] [7]) and prevent myself from being blocked (see [8]), I hereby ask for a consensus to include the country's official name, "Republic of China", in both the infobox and the lead section as it had been done in [9], upon request. All the substantial contributors of the article and concerned parties are invited to the discussion: @ User:EdJohnston, @ User: RGloucester, @ User:IJBall, @ User:NeilN, @ User:ASDFGH, @ User:opera fera, @ User:Itw, @ User:Sleepingstar, @ User:Vycl1994, @ User:Reality4013, @ User:AsianHippie, @ User:Taiwantaffy, @ User:Kaihsu, @ User:Ramone122, @ User:Chongkian, @ User:S-1-5-7, @ User:Keith chau yet.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Taiwan presidential election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@
Impru20:
MOS:IBX: General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox. Keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose.
Ythlev (
talk)
03:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
No that was just an example showing that longer ago elections not being consistent is less of a deal. The user you mentioned, I've already discussed with on their talk page and they agreed the map is fine. They reverted for the image size, not the map. Ythlev ( talk) 16:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I picked the most recent ones for now because believe it or not it takes time to make them. Guess what, the previous map was added by me without consensus too. There needs not be consensus for uncontroversial edits. Ythlev ( talk) 20:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
There needs not be consensus for uncontroversial edits.Indeed, but your current changes are not uncontroversial, so they do need consensus. Now this comes as a serious need when you say that "the previous map was added by me without consensus too", yet you now seek to change them because, according to you, these have "made-up" colors and seemingly constitute WP:OR (as per your own edit). Aside from the fact that you do not seem to understand at all what OR is (the mere use of a different color shade is not OR), it is not that you own neither the article's content nor the uploaded. The current images provide much more information on election results and vote distribution than the ones you seek to use as their replacement, so you'd have to bring forward some convincent reasoning so as to why you now seek to replace them with the images you are uploading these days. Impru20 talk 21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
yet you now seek to change them. I merely changed the text from Chinese to English. Doesn't mean I agree with the design.
the mere use of a different color shade is not ORSo I can swap KMT's blue with purple and say "no, that's blue, just a different shade"? How about using black or white? There are mathematically different shades blue. There should be at least a due process for determining the alternative colour, like averaging the RGB values with 255 etc, otherwise they are made-up.
The current images provide much more information on election results and vote distributionExactly. As I said in the beginning, "Keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." I've never seen election infobox maps coloured by vote share because it has the problem mentioned above. It's also not easy to distinguish the colours with low shares (<40%), especially when the light colours are next to each other and the areas are so small. It is clearer to use county/city divisions, especially when comparing with local elections side-by-side. County/city divisions are also what people identify with, whereas most people have no clue what townships/cities are where on a map. Ythlev ( talk) 02:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't controversial until you came alongFrom the pages' histories, one can see you have been reverting and reverted by a number of different users throughout the last days and weeks. So no, I wouldn't say that it was uncontroversial until I came along.
So I can swap KMT's blue with purple and say "no, that's blue, just a different shade"?No, that would still not be OR. That would be you playing dumb with all of us, though. You know very well what blue is. You may agree or disagree with the different shade of blue used, indeed, but 1) that does not constitute original research, because that refers to unverifiable content (and I'm fairly sure you can verify the KMT uses blue); and 2) that is not a reason for changing the whole map design as you argued in the edit summaries.
There are mathematically different shades blue. There should be at least a due process for determining the alternative colour, like averaging the RGB values with 255 etc, otherwise they are made-up.And what you propose is not your own made-up determination of how blue-ish should it be shown? Note that I'm not saying these methods are good or bad, but that you are being contradictory here, specially when in the previous comment you said it was you who added these images to the articles in the first place (so, they were good back at the time but not now? The images haven't changed, but it seems like your opinion has). And again, just because you don't like the shade of blue doesn't justify the change of the whole image design.
I've never seen election infobox maps coloured by vote share because it has the problem mentioned above.Italy, Spain, Romania, Germany, Greece, United Kingdom... that you have "never seen infobox maps coloured by vote share" only shows that you do not see many infoboxes, actually. So here your own argument comes against you: it is more and more common for infoboxes to show maps coloured by vote share precisely because the problem you argue about doesn't exist. Further, you are misinterpreting what the "Keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." Colouring maps by share only adds more in-depth visualization of information already in the infobox. For your argument to be correct, you would have to be proposing the removal of the map (i.e. making the infobox to show less information); once there is a map, obviously it should be as informative of an element as possible.
one can see you have been reverting and reverted by a number of different users throughout the last days and weeks.As I said, the dispute was resolved. In fact the map wasn't really disputed at all ( User_talk:Lmmnhn#Taiwanese_local_elections_infobox). The user just reverted to a version with the previous map.
you are being contradictory here. No I'm not. You weren't paying attention were you? There was a map with the current design but with Chinese text. I uploaded an English version and used it for the infobox. That doesn't mean I think it's the best design and it's the be-all and end-all. I simply didn't have the time or interest to put more thought into it. Now I do. Nothing contradictory about that. Back then nobody reverted for "no consensus". You can revert with a proper reason, but "no consensus" is not one of them.
I wouldn't mind administrative divisions to be shown if vote share strenght was shown. So as long as I update all presidential election maps simultaneously and show vote share, you'll be okay with it? Ythlev ( talk) 04:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Back then nobody reverted for "no consensus". You can revert with a proper reason, but "no consensus" is not one of them.The lack of consensus refers to now, not to back then.
So as long as I update all presidential election maps simultaneously and show vote share, you'll be okay with it?I'll be okay if consistency is maintained, yes. Vote share would help considering it's an ever growing trend in Wikipedia articles and that it shows not only where each candidate won, but also their strongholds and marginal areas, making maps much more useful. Impru20 talk 11:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
What I proposed isn't made-up. If I took a photo then passed it through a filter, that's different from coming back the next day to take snap the same object and claiming they're the same photo. As I said, I didn't put in much thought back then, nor did I know what OR was, so not "consciously", no. In fact OR for images is allowed as long as it does not introduce unpublished ideas. In the above analogy, if I used a widely-used filter, it would not have anything made up, whereas with a new photo, it would be questionable. Ythlev ( talk) 02:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There should be at least a due process for determining the alternative colour, like averaging the RGB values with 255 etc, otherwise they are made-upSo, using a different shade of blue is made-up, but averaging the RGB values isn't? This is the point. Note that I'd be glad if the actual party colors were used as faithfully as possible, indeed. But I do not see it as an argument to justify OR and "color make-up" accusations, when it's very clear that green is green and blue is blue. Impru20 talk 15:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
using a different shade of blue is made-up, but averaging the RGB values isn't?. The latter is equivalent to light intensity, which is what "different shades of the same colour" means, whereas the what these images have is equivalent to different wavelengths, so not even the same colour. Of course the intensity to use would be arbitrary, but it is much easier to agree on than "this blue looks good". Ythlev ( talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I propose a new version of the infobox map series in all of the Taiwan presidential elections, as I view there are flaws that do not reflect the nature of Taiwanese politics, especially where third-party candidates (or third-placed candidates) have more visibility and have shown to be able to garner a higher vote share than in countries such as the US, and even lead in township-level units (as is the case here and the 2000 Taiwanese presidential election, and in county-level units in an extreme case). Comparing only the top-two tickets creates an illusion that Taiwan is strictly a two-party system. Shading the township-level units by vote lead also skews the display towards heavily-populated areas. A few proposals on how to fix this:
1. Displaying just the county-level results in the infobox (pros: simple, easy to understand; cons: creates an illusion of a federal system though the French election page also uses it)
2. Displaying the township-level vote share (cons: skews results towards large jurisdictions)
3. Fixing the current set of maps by showing instead the vote difference between leader and runner-up in the township-level units Tjs2012 ( talk) 18:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Displaying the township-level vote share (cons: skews results towards large jurisdictions)Actually it skews towards small jurisdictions. You can have a very blue map but green actually wins by a lot.
Comparing only the top-two tickets creates an illusion that Taiwan is strictly a two-party system. That is what is done for France even though France is more diverse. It's not about two-party or not, it's about winner-takes-all. The big picture is that there is only one winner and we want to know how close the results are to flipping and how that closeness is distributed. This is different than for parliamentary elections which are not winner-takes-all (e.g. 2020 Taiwanese legislative election second infobox map). 182.235.227.63 ( talk) 07:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The big picture is already shown in the total numbers. No it is not. There is a difference between all areas being uniformly 56:31 and some areas 45:40 while some areas 20:70.
flipping in terms of party swing from the previous election would be more relevant. Sure, but what are going to do for 1996 and for new parties (like if TPP runs in 2024)?
a map similar to the "size of lead" map in the NYT interactive would be more precise. Not really. Having smaller circles to represent smaller leads is just a messier version of a lighter-shaded colour.
Third-placed candidates can lead in lower-level jurisdictions. They can in France as well, but we map the second round, not the first. I don't know why third-placed candidates leading in some areas is so important to you. To most people it is not. The county map you mention is not used in the infobox either. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 15:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you the same commenter as the previous reply?
Yes I am. I'm not inflating anything. I disagree in using a discrete number of shades to show vote lead
. There can only be a discrete number of levels. The map you made,
File:ROC 2020 Presidential Election Township level diff.svg, has a discrete number of circle sizes (3) and it also "only serves to hightlight where the urban areas are". I also do not understand why third-placed candidates are not important to the anonymous user
. Not just to me but most people. I've never heard of Ross Perot until you linked that page. Can you name the third-placed candidates in 2020? I also wonder why county-level maps are not used
. Because it has less information. None of the most recent presidential election articles of countries
. There's no rule or reason to have every countries' article be the same.
219.68.190.213 (
talk)
11:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
the vote lead maps have the flaw of skewing towards urban areas. It is not a flaw. Obviously more populous places affect the results more. For someone who knows nothing about the population distribution of Taiwan, such a map is helpful.
Experts in political science do.Wikipedia is not for experts.
That is exactly the point, where the infobox should be concise. Maps and images are always concise. Unlike a paragraph, you do not need to look at all 368 areas to get an overview. One glance at the map in 2012 will reveal that there is a north–south divide. One glance at the map in 2016 will reveal that DPP dominated the western dense areas. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 14:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, simple county-level leader maps in the infobox. The user in the above section insists there be vote strength ("The current images provide much more information on election results and vote distribution than the ones you seek to use as their replacement").
The county-level units are similarly sized (thus will not be skewed towards the indigenous townships at first glance). I don't get it. If you want to show third-parties, you must care about minorities, but you suggest county maps which skew towards densely-populated plains. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 10:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it would be great to have more people in the discussion, though I am not sure how to invite them. I made changes with links to this page so hopefully that will get things started. I think a maps section would be enough to make most people happy (of course there might be feelings for one's own artistic creation to be featured prominently but it seems like the anonymous user is not the original artist). Another user in the previous section has also said that "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." From my three original proposals I hope the anonymous user understands that my whole point is to have maps in the infobox that are easy to understand and reflect the situation in Taiwan well. Unfortunately I think the current set of maps does not do either (any other set of maps would be fine for me, thus the three proposals). Taiwan is simply a place where all candidates can be considered "major" (only parties with seats in LY can nominate, and independents would also have shown considerable support through signatures) and as such the design of maps in the infobox should take that into account. Again, I still see value in this current set of maps (after the anonymous user kindly explained to me what it aims to show) so I have said that it should stay in the article. Strong regional support does not always translate to strong minority support, though I am happy to have this discussion after future election cycles for any adjustment if we have candidates like that. Tjs2012 ( talk) 17:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Another user in the previous section has also said that "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose.". That user later compromised and created the current maps.
Taiwan is simply a place where all candidates can be considered "major". That's your opinion. On Wikipedia, a candidate is not shown if they get less than 5% vote share, so James Soong is not shown in 2012 and 2020. I didn't make this up.
only parties with seats in LY can nominate. Having nomination requirements doesn't mean anything. There are requirements for all elections, even LY party-list, but we don't list 19 parties.
adjustment if we have candidates like that. We don't change the type of map based on results; we pick one that based on the electoral system and stick with it. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 10:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
That user never rescinded his/her position on the amount of information. I'm talking about User:Ythlev. They created the maps, meaning they agree that having township-level results is not too much information.
Please back up your viewpoints or else I will treat them as opinion.When you say "look like a good compromise", that is an opinion to which I disagree. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 03:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I am merely trying to change the title of the election infobox from "Taiwan presidential election" to "Republic of China (Taiwan) presidential election" which is the official name of the respected country and its election (See the inaugural address of President Tsai Ing-wen on May 20, 2016 [1]), but it keeps being disruptively reverted by User:Number 57 based on no reason rather than a consensus only agreeing on "Taiwan" being used in the title of the article instead of "ROC" but nothing on the content of the article (see [2]). Now not only did User:Number 57 erase the official name on the name of the infobox, he also erased the official term "Republic of China" by removing it from the lead section (See [3]).
In order to stop User:Number 57's reverts (see [4] [5] [6] [7]) and prevent myself from being blocked (see [8]), I hereby ask for a consensus to include the country's official name, "Republic of China", in both the infobox and the lead section as it had been done in [9], upon request. All the substantial contributors of the article and concerned parties are invited to the discussion: @ User:EdJohnston, @ User: RGloucester, @ User:IJBall, @ User:NeilN, @ User:ASDFGH, @ User:opera fera, @ User:Itw, @ User:Sleepingstar, @ User:Vycl1994, @ User:Reality4013, @ User:AsianHippie, @ User:Taiwantaffy, @ User:Kaihsu, @ User:Ramone122, @ User:Chongkian, @ User:S-1-5-7, @ User:Keith chau yet.
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Taiwan presidential election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@
Impru20:
MOS:IBX: General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox. Keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose.
Ythlev (
talk)
03:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
No that was just an example showing that longer ago elections not being consistent is less of a deal. The user you mentioned, I've already discussed with on their talk page and they agreed the map is fine. They reverted for the image size, not the map. Ythlev ( talk) 16:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I picked the most recent ones for now because believe it or not it takes time to make them. Guess what, the previous map was added by me without consensus too. There needs not be consensus for uncontroversial edits. Ythlev ( talk) 20:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
There needs not be consensus for uncontroversial edits.Indeed, but your current changes are not uncontroversial, so they do need consensus. Now this comes as a serious need when you say that "the previous map was added by me without consensus too", yet you now seek to change them because, according to you, these have "made-up" colors and seemingly constitute WP:OR (as per your own edit). Aside from the fact that you do not seem to understand at all what OR is (the mere use of a different color shade is not OR), it is not that you own neither the article's content nor the uploaded. The current images provide much more information on election results and vote distribution than the ones you seek to use as their replacement, so you'd have to bring forward some convincent reasoning so as to why you now seek to replace them with the images you are uploading these days. Impru20 talk 21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
yet you now seek to change them. I merely changed the text from Chinese to English. Doesn't mean I agree with the design.
the mere use of a different color shade is not ORSo I can swap KMT's blue with purple and say "no, that's blue, just a different shade"? How about using black or white? There are mathematically different shades blue. There should be at least a due process for determining the alternative colour, like averaging the RGB values with 255 etc, otherwise they are made-up.
The current images provide much more information on election results and vote distributionExactly. As I said in the beginning, "Keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." I've never seen election infobox maps coloured by vote share because it has the problem mentioned above. It's also not easy to distinguish the colours with low shares (<40%), especially when the light colours are next to each other and the areas are so small. It is clearer to use county/city divisions, especially when comparing with local elections side-by-side. County/city divisions are also what people identify with, whereas most people have no clue what townships/cities are where on a map. Ythlev ( talk) 02:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't controversial until you came alongFrom the pages' histories, one can see you have been reverting and reverted by a number of different users throughout the last days and weeks. So no, I wouldn't say that it was uncontroversial until I came along.
So I can swap KMT's blue with purple and say "no, that's blue, just a different shade"?No, that would still not be OR. That would be you playing dumb with all of us, though. You know very well what blue is. You may agree or disagree with the different shade of blue used, indeed, but 1) that does not constitute original research, because that refers to unverifiable content (and I'm fairly sure you can verify the KMT uses blue); and 2) that is not a reason for changing the whole map design as you argued in the edit summaries.
There are mathematically different shades blue. There should be at least a due process for determining the alternative colour, like averaging the RGB values with 255 etc, otherwise they are made-up.And what you propose is not your own made-up determination of how blue-ish should it be shown? Note that I'm not saying these methods are good or bad, but that you are being contradictory here, specially when in the previous comment you said it was you who added these images to the articles in the first place (so, they were good back at the time but not now? The images haven't changed, but it seems like your opinion has). And again, just because you don't like the shade of blue doesn't justify the change of the whole image design.
I've never seen election infobox maps coloured by vote share because it has the problem mentioned above.Italy, Spain, Romania, Germany, Greece, United Kingdom... that you have "never seen infobox maps coloured by vote share" only shows that you do not see many infoboxes, actually. So here your own argument comes against you: it is more and more common for infoboxes to show maps coloured by vote share precisely because the problem you argue about doesn't exist. Further, you are misinterpreting what the "Keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." Colouring maps by share only adds more in-depth visualization of information already in the infobox. For your argument to be correct, you would have to be proposing the removal of the map (i.e. making the infobox to show less information); once there is a map, obviously it should be as informative of an element as possible.
one can see you have been reverting and reverted by a number of different users throughout the last days and weeks.As I said, the dispute was resolved. In fact the map wasn't really disputed at all ( User_talk:Lmmnhn#Taiwanese_local_elections_infobox). The user just reverted to a version with the previous map.
you are being contradictory here. No I'm not. You weren't paying attention were you? There was a map with the current design but with Chinese text. I uploaded an English version and used it for the infobox. That doesn't mean I think it's the best design and it's the be-all and end-all. I simply didn't have the time or interest to put more thought into it. Now I do. Nothing contradictory about that. Back then nobody reverted for "no consensus". You can revert with a proper reason, but "no consensus" is not one of them.
I wouldn't mind administrative divisions to be shown if vote share strenght was shown. So as long as I update all presidential election maps simultaneously and show vote share, you'll be okay with it? Ythlev ( talk) 04:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Back then nobody reverted for "no consensus". You can revert with a proper reason, but "no consensus" is not one of them.The lack of consensus refers to now, not to back then.
So as long as I update all presidential election maps simultaneously and show vote share, you'll be okay with it?I'll be okay if consistency is maintained, yes. Vote share would help considering it's an ever growing trend in Wikipedia articles and that it shows not only where each candidate won, but also their strongholds and marginal areas, making maps much more useful. Impru20 talk 11:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
What I proposed isn't made-up. If I took a photo then passed it through a filter, that's different from coming back the next day to take snap the same object and claiming they're the same photo. As I said, I didn't put in much thought back then, nor did I know what OR was, so not "consciously", no. In fact OR for images is allowed as long as it does not introduce unpublished ideas. In the above analogy, if I used a widely-used filter, it would not have anything made up, whereas with a new photo, it would be questionable. Ythlev ( talk) 02:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There should be at least a due process for determining the alternative colour, like averaging the RGB values with 255 etc, otherwise they are made-upSo, using a different shade of blue is made-up, but averaging the RGB values isn't? This is the point. Note that I'd be glad if the actual party colors were used as faithfully as possible, indeed. But I do not see it as an argument to justify OR and "color make-up" accusations, when it's very clear that green is green and blue is blue. Impru20 talk 15:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
using a different shade of blue is made-up, but averaging the RGB values isn't?. The latter is equivalent to light intensity, which is what "different shades of the same colour" means, whereas the what these images have is equivalent to different wavelengths, so not even the same colour. Of course the intensity to use would be arbitrary, but it is much easier to agree on than "this blue looks good". Ythlev ( talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I propose a new version of the infobox map series in all of the Taiwan presidential elections, as I view there are flaws that do not reflect the nature of Taiwanese politics, especially where third-party candidates (or third-placed candidates) have more visibility and have shown to be able to garner a higher vote share than in countries such as the US, and even lead in township-level units (as is the case here and the 2000 Taiwanese presidential election, and in county-level units in an extreme case). Comparing only the top-two tickets creates an illusion that Taiwan is strictly a two-party system. Shading the township-level units by vote lead also skews the display towards heavily-populated areas. A few proposals on how to fix this:
1. Displaying just the county-level results in the infobox (pros: simple, easy to understand; cons: creates an illusion of a federal system though the French election page also uses it)
2. Displaying the township-level vote share (cons: skews results towards large jurisdictions)
3. Fixing the current set of maps by showing instead the vote difference between leader and runner-up in the township-level units Tjs2012 ( talk) 18:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Displaying the township-level vote share (cons: skews results towards large jurisdictions)Actually it skews towards small jurisdictions. You can have a very blue map but green actually wins by a lot.
Comparing only the top-two tickets creates an illusion that Taiwan is strictly a two-party system. That is what is done for France even though France is more diverse. It's not about two-party or not, it's about winner-takes-all. The big picture is that there is only one winner and we want to know how close the results are to flipping and how that closeness is distributed. This is different than for parliamentary elections which are not winner-takes-all (e.g. 2020 Taiwanese legislative election second infobox map). 182.235.227.63 ( talk) 07:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The big picture is already shown in the total numbers. No it is not. There is a difference between all areas being uniformly 56:31 and some areas 45:40 while some areas 20:70.
flipping in terms of party swing from the previous election would be more relevant. Sure, but what are going to do for 1996 and for new parties (like if TPP runs in 2024)?
a map similar to the "size of lead" map in the NYT interactive would be more precise. Not really. Having smaller circles to represent smaller leads is just a messier version of a lighter-shaded colour.
Third-placed candidates can lead in lower-level jurisdictions. They can in France as well, but we map the second round, not the first. I don't know why third-placed candidates leading in some areas is so important to you. To most people it is not. The county map you mention is not used in the infobox either. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 15:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you the same commenter as the previous reply?
Yes I am. I'm not inflating anything. I disagree in using a discrete number of shades to show vote lead
. There can only be a discrete number of levels. The map you made,
File:ROC 2020 Presidential Election Township level diff.svg, has a discrete number of circle sizes (3) and it also "only serves to hightlight where the urban areas are". I also do not understand why third-placed candidates are not important to the anonymous user
. Not just to me but most people. I've never heard of Ross Perot until you linked that page. Can you name the third-placed candidates in 2020? I also wonder why county-level maps are not used
. Because it has less information. None of the most recent presidential election articles of countries
. There's no rule or reason to have every countries' article be the same.
219.68.190.213 (
talk)
11:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
the vote lead maps have the flaw of skewing towards urban areas. It is not a flaw. Obviously more populous places affect the results more. For someone who knows nothing about the population distribution of Taiwan, such a map is helpful.
Experts in political science do.Wikipedia is not for experts.
That is exactly the point, where the infobox should be concise. Maps and images are always concise. Unlike a paragraph, you do not need to look at all 368 areas to get an overview. One glance at the map in 2012 will reveal that there is a north–south divide. One glance at the map in 2016 will reveal that DPP dominated the western dense areas. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 14:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, simple county-level leader maps in the infobox. The user in the above section insists there be vote strength ("The current images provide much more information on election results and vote distribution than the ones you seek to use as their replacement").
The county-level units are similarly sized (thus will not be skewed towards the indigenous townships at first glance). I don't get it. If you want to show third-parties, you must care about minorities, but you suggest county maps which skew towards densely-populated plains. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 10:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it would be great to have more people in the discussion, though I am not sure how to invite them. I made changes with links to this page so hopefully that will get things started. I think a maps section would be enough to make most people happy (of course there might be feelings for one's own artistic creation to be featured prominently but it seems like the anonymous user is not the original artist). Another user in the previous section has also said that "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." From my three original proposals I hope the anonymous user understands that my whole point is to have maps in the infobox that are easy to understand and reflect the situation in Taiwan well. Unfortunately I think the current set of maps does not do either (any other set of maps would be fine for me, thus the three proposals). Taiwan is simply a place where all candidates can be considered "major" (only parties with seats in LY can nominate, and independents would also have shown considerable support through signatures) and as such the design of maps in the infobox should take that into account. Again, I still see value in this current set of maps (after the anonymous user kindly explained to me what it aims to show) so I have said that it should stay in the article. Strong regional support does not always translate to strong minority support, though I am happy to have this discussion after future election cycles for any adjustment if we have candidates like that. Tjs2012 ( talk) 17:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Another user in the previous section has also said that "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose.". That user later compromised and created the current maps.
Taiwan is simply a place where all candidates can be considered "major". That's your opinion. On Wikipedia, a candidate is not shown if they get less than 5% vote share, so James Soong is not shown in 2012 and 2020. I didn't make this up.
only parties with seats in LY can nominate. Having nomination requirements doesn't mean anything. There are requirements for all elections, even LY party-list, but we don't list 19 parties.
adjustment if we have candidates like that. We don't change the type of map based on results; we pick one that based on the electoral system and stick with it. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 10:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
That user never rescinded his/her position on the amount of information. I'm talking about User:Ythlev. They created the maps, meaning they agree that having township-level results is not too much information.
Please back up your viewpoints or else I will treat them as opinion.When you say "look like a good compromise", that is an opinion to which I disagree. 219.68.190.213 ( talk) 03:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)