 |
Template:Infobox election is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox election template. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 120 days
 |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
I occasionally see infoboxes being changed from nominee to candidate and vice versa, and there seems no hard-and-fast rules about which term is appropriate. Are they just different terms for the same thing, or is there actually a difference? If the latter, can we create a clear definition of when to use each? Number 5 7 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- This usage may vary by country, but in US presidential elections, there are two major parties, and until the party's convention a few months before the election, there are multiple candidates in each party. At the convention, the party chooses a nominee, at which point each party has only one candidate for president. See United States presidential nominating convention for excruciating details. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed that when viewing the election infobox on mobile, candidate image sizes are always of unequal size (which seems like a bug to me). It seems like whichever candiate is represented by a blue colour gets a larger image Can anyone replicate it?
screenshot of the infobox from this page - https://i.ibb.co/8cnWhTc/IMG-0622.png - and another from the infobox from 2024 London mayoral election (where I noticed the issue) - https://i.ibb.co/hHbb86h/IMG-0623.png Oliverwinton ( talk) 14:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Oliverwinton: This has been a problem for a while, but I am not sure the infobox code is the problem (as it sets consistent sizes). It might be worth reporting it as a bug via the route detailed at WP:BUGS. Number 5 7 14:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like to propose we change the final section of the infobox so that instead of the defaults being "[Title] before election" and "Elected [title]", the default is "[Title] before election" and "[Title] after election".
The default of "Elected [title]" for the post-election situation doesn't work for most parliamentary elections as the Prime Minister or whatever other postholder is mentioned is not generally elected to that position. This results in a huge number of infoboxes having to correct it by using the "posttitle" parameter. Defaulting to "[Title] before election" and "[Title] after election" would be neutral and correct, and avoid having to add a correcting parameter to many articles (or edits like this where the entire section gets removed because the wording is wrong). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agree as a straightforward improvement. Ralbegen ( talk) 20:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- not really neccesary imo WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 04:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea, Number 57. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
With very few exceptions, there is no sitting MP immediately before a by-election: that is why an election is needed. Even at a general election, the parliament is dissolved, therefpre MPs cease to be such. It is not reasonable to state, before an election, that the MP before an election is a person who died some weeks previously. Suggest rename this field to Previous MP. As an aside, wikilinking MP twice on the same row, in a context where it can be reasonably assumed that the reader knows what that is, seems something of overkill. Kevin McE ( talk) 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assume this is in relation to Special:Diff/1206896902. I think it's an argument of semantics, and as such I don't really have an opinion on the matter (I mean, really, there isn't much difference between "X was the previous MP" and "Y was the MP before this election"). Primefac ( talk) 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Proposal to add automatic SDs to Template:Infobox election. As it would involve a potential change to this template, editors are invited to participate in the discussion. Thank you for helping improve WP:Short descriptions on Wikipedia! - - mathmitch7 ( talk/ contribs) 17:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Should elections include equal-ranked and truncated ballots when calculating vote shares? For example, should ballots marked A = B > C be included in calculating the vote share for A against B?
- Support - Yes
- Oppose - No
Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support. The convention in the social choice literature on this topic is very clear: equal-ranked ballots need to be included, because they can affect the outcome of the election. This is particularly important for paired counting methods, because equal-ranking indicates indifference (which dilutes the margin of victory). Even for systems where equal-ranking two candidates does not affect the results, users should know what share of ballots were exhausted or ranked several candidates as tied. It is easy to calculate what the results of the election would have been if equal ranks were excluded, but not vice-versa. Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now on the basis that you've not explained adequately what you are seeking to do. I've read your comments at
WT:E&R several times and I am still none the wiser to what the issue is here.
Number
5
7 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to find consensus on a consistent standard for reporting ranked-choice voting results.
- As an example, let's take the article on the
2011 Irish presidential election. The infobox says the "final round result" was 56.8% of the vote for Michael Higgins, against 35.5% of the vote for Sean Gallagher. These don't add up to 100%, because some voters have ballots that look like this:
- Mitchell
- McGuiness
- All other candidates (equal)
- "Any other candidate" votes make up the last 8%. The question is whether an infobox reporting "final round results" should include "all other candidates," or whether these votes should be excluded.
- Currently, there is no standard, and infoboxes are inconsistent across articles. For example, 2009 Burlington mayoral election uses the opposite convention. "All other candidates" are 6.7% of votes, but these are discarded to report the margin as 51.5% to 48.5%, instead of as 48% to 45.2%.
- This allows unscrupulous editors to manipulate the apparent margin of victory: a Purple party supporter might report an election they lost as having a margin of 30% to 20%, with 50% of voters being apathetic between the two (an unconvincing victory). Elsewhere, they could report the same election results, but with Purple as the winner, by saying Purple had 60% of the final-round vote. Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, do you just mean we should stick to reporting first preference votes for STV/AV/SV elections?
Bondegezou (
talk) 06:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying that in every round or matchup, the vote share should be equal to the number of votes for a candidate, divided by the total number of ballots (including those that, in the final round, show no further preferences). This is because those ballots can still affect the outcome under many voting systems.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk) 07:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest we should follow standard practice by reliable sources, and that these may vary from context to context.
Closed Limelike Curves, can you show some examples in RS of what you want done?
Bondegezou (
talk) 12:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- RS? Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's not really a standard practice from reliable sources for this, because both numbers are correct; they just measure different things. The only time this causes a problem is when vote totals are inconsistent across infoboxes on Wikipedia, because excluding truncated ballots from some totals but not others leaves the door open for biases and confusion. Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest we should follow standard practice by reliable sources, and that these may vary from context to context.
Closed Limelike Curves, can you show some examples in RS of what you want done?
Bondegezou (
talk) 12:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying that in every round or matchup, the vote share should be equal to the number of votes for a candidate, divided by the total number of ballots (including those that, in the final round, show no further preferences). This is because those ballots can still affect the outcome under many voting systems.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk) 07:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, do you just mean we should stick to reporting first preference votes for STV/AV/SV elections?
Bondegezou (
talk) 06:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think consistency in a series of articles about elections in the same place makes sense. I don’t think there’s a particular need for how we report Maltese elections to match how we report Australian elections if RS about the former do one thing and RS about the latter do another. I think instead of this very generic RfC, that most editors appear to be struggling to follow given the lack of activity in it, it would be more useful to examine specific cases. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I modified the last edit because articles like
this one were picking up the unnamed parameters and using them for the flag. removing these unnamed parameters fix the strange Template:Country data independent at the top, but then left a blank row at the top. this is because if |country= is in the template but blank, then the #ifexist check still picks up
Template:Country data which is a valid template. I put the "check for blank" back around this line and now it looks fine in both cases.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Talking of strange outputs, can anyone work out why the colour bar of the presidential election section of this infobox is so wide? It isn't an issue on other infoboxes arranged in the same way... Cheers, Number 5 7 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can someone revert to last clean ASAP, strange things are still showing up in i.e. /info/en/?search=1976_United_States_presidential_election_in_Nebraska DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- The code seem to malfunction and data that should not be visible in GUI output seems to be visible and the information does not seem to be contained in designated area, I don't know what has happened perhaps some kind of new regulations imposed on templates can not put up with the actuality in programming scale. Cactus Ronin ( talk) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- The "alliance" parameter outputs "parameter 1 should be a party name." if nothing is entered now.
HapHaxion (
talk /
contribs) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Ahecht: can you fix what broke with your changes?
Frietjes (
talk) 18:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- the blank row is still at the top of
2012 World Bank Group presidential election caused by the bad logic for
|country=being blank and 1918 Portuguese general election still has a large red error saying parameter 1 should be a party name., ... which is coming from Module:Political party get bad input this error was caused by this change which broke another blank input case. Frietjes ( talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)- I have fixed the big red error with a partial revert of the /shortname template. I added a
new test case to show the error. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Jonesey95, that helps.
we still have 2024 Portuguese legislative election linking to "none" which is a disambiguation page, but at least no red errors.Frietjes ( talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) - @
Jonesey95@
Frietjes Thanks for adding the test case. I added an additional check for
|country=being blank. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)- Re the test case, do we know why using candidate and nominee do different things to the width of the colour bar? And also what is happening with the previous/next election links (why are they spilling off the edge of the infobox?). Cheers, Number 5 7 22:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, can people remember to use the sandbox to test stuff, rather than risk breaking tens of thousands of articles... Number 5 7 22:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Jonesey95, that helps.
- I have fixed the big red error with a partial revert of the /shortname template. I added a
new test case to show the error. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- the blank row is still at the top of
2012 World Bank Group presidential election caused by the bad logic for
- @
Ahecht: can you fix what broke with your changes?
Frietjes (
talk) 18:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Please fix this so that putting "TBD" in the after party parameter does not link the disambiguation page, TBD
Thanks. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ BD2412: Done. Will now appear as TBD. Also did the same for TBC. These sorts of things can be sorted out at {{ Infobox election/shortname}}. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Number 57 in this revert you wrote
This has messed up thousands of articles. Please test this kind of stuff in the sandbox first
FWIW I tested this on a local MediaWiki instance so please don't assume I didn't test this, but could you expand on what exactly broke? It looked fine to me on the testcases after I made the change - and it is a minor change that is only adding CSS.
The template is currently problematic as it is exhibiting bias, so I'm keen to understand what problem you are seeing with the two rules of CSS I added so I'm keen to fix it ASAP.
Thanks in advance for your quick answer! 🐸 Jdlrobson ( talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I loaded it into sandbox per your request and I'm not seeing anything obvious on
Template:Infobox election/testcases - what am I missing? 🐸
Jdlrobson (
talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The initial edit you made to the infobox caused the images to be compressed horizontally. For example, the images at 2024 United States presidential election stayed the same height, but were compressed to about a third of their original width.
- I'm not sure what you've done this time, but it causes the images to be really small (I think 80x80px) but also stretches the infobox to twice as wide as it should be.
- Annoyingly I can't show this side-by-side, as if you put the two versions on the same page, the style from the sandbox interferes with the main version. However, compare User:Number 57/sandbox 3 (normal infobox with default size of 150x150px) with User:Number 57/sandbox 4 (sandbox) and you'll see what I mean.
- Perhaps you are doing this from a mobile device which is why you can't see the effect it is having?
Number
5
7 23:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes this was the intention of the change. It should aplly to Minerva but not Vector. Why do you consider that broken? Without this all the infoboxes are clipped by default on mobile and every candidate other than the first requires scrolling to view.
- i was editing from a desktop device and testing both mobile and desktop experiences
- What skin are you using? 🐸
Jdlrobson (
talk) 01:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
?useskin=monobookand?useskin=timelessshow differences for me in desktop mode. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- Just to clarify, did you mean to fix the image to 80x80px? It's far too small on a computer screen. I am using Monobook btw. Cheers, Number 5 7 10:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I didn't realize we optimized templates for Monobook and Timeless. When reporting "breakage" it's helpful to know straight away if you are using non-default skin and specifically what you mean by breakage (my understanding of breakage is the page doesn't render at all).
- I've updated the styles to not apply to Monobook and Timeless, I always forget they are responsive.
- The behaviour for Minerva is expected - 80x80 is selected as typically a mobile browser will be upwards of 320px and assuming at least 3 candidates (plus the heading row) 80*4 = 320. On Minerva infoboxes are capped to 300px so they should probably be smaller but that didn't. I think we could go up to 100px if we wanted since typically the majority of devices these days are 400px. Feel free to increase to 100px in the styles in Template:Infobox_election/styles.css if you feel like that makes a better compromise.
- I think ideally, we'd switch to a row based layout on lower resolution devices, and stack these vertically rather than horizontally but that seems like a larger change that might require change to the HTML or more drastic changes to the CSS? 🐸 Jdlrobson ( talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Template:Infobox election is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox election template. |
|
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 120 days
|
| This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
I occasionally see infoboxes being changed from nominee to candidate and vice versa, and there seems no hard-and-fast rules about which term is appropriate. Are they just different terms for the same thing, or is there actually a difference? If the latter, can we create a clear definition of when to use each? Number 5 7 22:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- This usage may vary by country, but in US presidential elections, there are two major parties, and until the party's convention a few months before the election, there are multiple candidates in each party. At the convention, the party chooses a nominee, at which point each party has only one candidate for president. See United States presidential nominating convention for excruciating details. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed that when viewing the election infobox on mobile, candidate image sizes are always of unequal size (which seems like a bug to me). It seems like whichever candiate is represented by a blue colour gets a larger image Can anyone replicate it?
screenshot of the infobox from this page - https://i.ibb.co/8cnWhTc/IMG-0622.png - and another from the infobox from 2024 London mayoral election (where I noticed the issue) - https://i.ibb.co/hHbb86h/IMG-0623.png Oliverwinton ( talk) 14:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Oliverwinton: This has been a problem for a while, but I am not sure the infobox code is the problem (as it sets consistent sizes). It might be worth reporting it as a bug via the route detailed at WP:BUGS. Number 5 7 14:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like to propose we change the final section of the infobox so that instead of the defaults being "[Title] before election" and "Elected [title]", the default is "[Title] before election" and "[Title] after election".
The default of "Elected [title]" for the post-election situation doesn't work for most parliamentary elections as the Prime Minister or whatever other postholder is mentioned is not generally elected to that position. This results in a huge number of infoboxes having to correct it by using the "posttitle" parameter. Defaulting to "[Title] before election" and "[Title] after election" would be neutral and correct, and avoid having to add a correcting parameter to many articles (or edits like this where the entire section gets removed because the wording is wrong). Cheers, Number 5 7 20:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agree as a straightforward improvement. Ralbegen ( talk) 20:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- not really neccesary imo WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 04:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea, Number 57. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
With very few exceptions, there is no sitting MP immediately before a by-election: that is why an election is needed. Even at a general election, the parliament is dissolved, therefpre MPs cease to be such. It is not reasonable to state, before an election, that the MP before an election is a person who died some weeks previously. Suggest rename this field to Previous MP. As an aside, wikilinking MP twice on the same row, in a context where it can be reasonably assumed that the reader knows what that is, seems something of overkill. Kevin McE ( talk) 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assume this is in relation to Special:Diff/1206896902. I think it's an argument of semantics, and as such I don't really have an opinion on the matter (I mean, really, there isn't much difference between "X was the previous MP" and "Y was the MP before this election"). Primefac ( talk) 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Proposal to add automatic SDs to Template:Infobox election. As it would involve a potential change to this template, editors are invited to participate in the discussion. Thank you for helping improve WP:Short descriptions on Wikipedia! - - mathmitch7 ( talk/ contribs) 17:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Should elections include equal-ranked and truncated ballots when calculating vote shares? For example, should ballots marked A = B > C be included in calculating the vote share for A against B?
- Support - Yes
- Oppose - No
Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 04:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support. The convention in the social choice literature on this topic is very clear: equal-ranked ballots need to be included, because they can affect the outcome of the election. This is particularly important for paired counting methods, because equal-ranking indicates indifference (which dilutes the margin of victory). Even for systems where equal-ranking two candidates does not affect the results, users should know what share of ballots were exhausted or ranked several candidates as tied. It is easy to calculate what the results of the election would have been if equal ranks were excluded, but not vice-versa. Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now on the basis that you've not explained adequately what you are seeking to do. I've read your comments at
WT:E&R several times and I am still none the wiser to what the issue is here.
Number
5
7 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to find consensus on a consistent standard for reporting ranked-choice voting results.
- As an example, let's take the article on the
2011 Irish presidential election. The infobox says the "final round result" was 56.8% of the vote for Michael Higgins, against 35.5% of the vote for Sean Gallagher. These don't add up to 100%, because some voters have ballots that look like this:
- Mitchell
- McGuiness
- All other candidates (equal)
- "Any other candidate" votes make up the last 8%. The question is whether an infobox reporting "final round results" should include "all other candidates," or whether these votes should be excluded.
- Currently, there is no standard, and infoboxes are inconsistent across articles. For example, 2009 Burlington mayoral election uses the opposite convention. "All other candidates" are 6.7% of votes, but these are discarded to report the margin as 51.5% to 48.5%, instead of as 48% to 45.2%.
- This allows unscrupulous editors to manipulate the apparent margin of victory: a Purple party supporter might report an election they lost as having a margin of 30% to 20%, with 50% of voters being apathetic between the two (an unconvincing victory). Elsewhere, they could report the same election results, but with Purple as the winner, by saying Purple had 60% of the final-round vote. Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, do you just mean we should stick to reporting first preference votes for STV/AV/SV elections?
Bondegezou (
talk) 06:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying that in every round or matchup, the vote share should be equal to the number of votes for a candidate, divided by the total number of ballots (including those that, in the final round, show no further preferences). This is because those ballots can still affect the outcome under many voting systems.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk) 07:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest we should follow standard practice by reliable sources, and that these may vary from context to context.
Closed Limelike Curves, can you show some examples in RS of what you want done?
Bondegezou (
talk) 12:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- RS? Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's not really a standard practice from reliable sources for this, because both numbers are correct; they just measure different things. The only time this causes a problem is when vote totals are inconsistent across infoboxes on Wikipedia, because excluding truncated ballots from some totals but not others leaves the door open for biases and confusion. Closed Limelike Curves ( talk) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest we should follow standard practice by reliable sources, and that these may vary from context to context.
Closed Limelike Curves, can you show some examples in RS of what you want done?
Bondegezou (
talk) 12:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm saying that in every round or matchup, the vote share should be equal to the number of votes for a candidate, divided by the total number of ballots (including those that, in the final round, show no further preferences). This is because those ballots can still affect the outcome under many voting systems.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk) 07:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- So, do you just mean we should stick to reporting first preference votes for STV/AV/SV elections?
Bondegezou (
talk) 06:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think consistency in a series of articles about elections in the same place makes sense. I don’t think there’s a particular need for how we report Maltese elections to match how we report Australian elections if RS about the former do one thing and RS about the latter do another. I think instead of this very generic RfC, that most editors appear to be struggling to follow given the lack of activity in it, it would be more useful to examine specific cases. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I modified the last edit because articles like
this one were picking up the unnamed parameters and using them for the flag. removing these unnamed parameters fix the strange Template:Country data independent at the top, but then left a blank row at the top. this is because if |country= is in the template but blank, then the #ifexist check still picks up
Template:Country data which is a valid template. I put the "check for blank" back around this line and now it looks fine in both cases.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Talking of strange outputs, can anyone work out why the colour bar of the presidential election section of this infobox is so wide? It isn't an issue on other infoboxes arranged in the same way... Cheers, Number 5 7 16:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can someone revert to last clean ASAP, strange things are still showing up in i.e. /info/en/?search=1976_United_States_presidential_election_in_Nebraska DemocraticLuntz ( talk) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- The code seem to malfunction and data that should not be visible in GUI output seems to be visible and the information does not seem to be contained in designated area, I don't know what has happened perhaps some kind of new regulations imposed on templates can not put up with the actuality in programming scale. Cactus Ronin ( talk) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- The "alliance" parameter outputs "parameter 1 should be a party name." if nothing is entered now.
HapHaxion (
talk /
contribs) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @
Ahecht: can you fix what broke with your changes?
Frietjes (
talk) 18:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- the blank row is still at the top of
2012 World Bank Group presidential election caused by the bad logic for
|country=being blank and 1918 Portuguese general election still has a large red error saying parameter 1 should be a party name., ... which is coming from Module:Political party get bad input this error was caused by this change which broke another blank input case. Frietjes ( talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)- I have fixed the big red error with a partial revert of the /shortname template. I added a
new test case to show the error. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Jonesey95, that helps.
we still have 2024 Portuguese legislative election linking to "none" which is a disambiguation page, but at least no red errors.Frietjes ( talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) - @
Jonesey95@
Frietjes Thanks for adding the test case. I added an additional check for
|country=being blank. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)- Re the test case, do we know why using candidate and nominee do different things to the width of the colour bar? And also what is happening with the previous/next election links (why are they spilling off the edge of the infobox?). Cheers, Number 5 7 22:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, can people remember to use the sandbox to test stuff, rather than risk breaking tens of thousands of articles... Number 5 7 22:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
-
Jonesey95, that helps.
- I have fixed the big red error with a partial revert of the /shortname template. I added a
new test case to show the error. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- the blank row is still at the top of
2012 World Bank Group presidential election caused by the bad logic for
- @
Ahecht: can you fix what broke with your changes?
Frietjes (
talk) 18:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Please fix this so that putting "TBD" in the after party parameter does not link the disambiguation page, TBD
Thanks. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @ BD2412: Done. Will now appear as TBD. Also did the same for TBC. These sorts of things can be sorted out at {{ Infobox election/shortname}}. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi @ Number 57 in this revert you wrote
This has messed up thousands of articles. Please test this kind of stuff in the sandbox first
FWIW I tested this on a local MediaWiki instance so please don't assume I didn't test this, but could you expand on what exactly broke? It looked fine to me on the testcases after I made the change - and it is a minor change that is only adding CSS.
The template is currently problematic as it is exhibiting bias, so I'm keen to understand what problem you are seeing with the two rules of CSS I added so I'm keen to fix it ASAP.
Thanks in advance for your quick answer! 🐸 Jdlrobson ( talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I loaded it into sandbox per your request and I'm not seeing anything obvious on
Template:Infobox election/testcases - what am I missing? 🐸
Jdlrobson (
talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The initial edit you made to the infobox caused the images to be compressed horizontally. For example, the images at 2024 United States presidential election stayed the same height, but were compressed to about a third of their original width.
- I'm not sure what you've done this time, but it causes the images to be really small (I think 80x80px) but also stretches the infobox to twice as wide as it should be.
- Annoyingly I can't show this side-by-side, as if you put the two versions on the same page, the style from the sandbox interferes with the main version. However, compare User:Number 57/sandbox 3 (normal infobox with default size of 150x150px) with User:Number 57/sandbox 4 (sandbox) and you'll see what I mean.
- Perhaps you are doing this from a mobile device which is why you can't see the effect it is having?
Number
5
7 23:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes this was the intention of the change. It should aplly to Minerva but not Vector. Why do you consider that broken? Without this all the infoboxes are clipped by default on mobile and every candidate other than the first requires scrolling to view.
- i was editing from a desktop device and testing both mobile and desktop experiences
- What skin are you using? 🐸
Jdlrobson (
talk) 01:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
?useskin=monobookand?useskin=timelessshow differences for me in desktop mode. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)- Just to clarify, did you mean to fix the image to 80x80px? It's far too small on a computer screen. I am using Monobook btw. Cheers, Number 5 7 10:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I didn't realize we optimized templates for Monobook and Timeless. When reporting "breakage" it's helpful to know straight away if you are using non-default skin and specifically what you mean by breakage (my understanding of breakage is the page doesn't render at all).
- I've updated the styles to not apply to Monobook and Timeless, I always forget they are responsive.
- The behaviour for Minerva is expected - 80x80 is selected as typically a mobile browser will be upwards of 320px and assuming at least 3 candidates (plus the heading row) 80*4 = 320. On Minerva infoboxes are capped to 300px so they should probably be smaller but that didn't. I think we could go up to 100px if we wanted since typically the majority of devices these days are 400px. Feel free to increase to 100px in the styles in Template:Infobox_election/styles.css if you feel like that makes a better compromise.
- I think ideally, we'd switch to a row based layout on lower resolution devices, and stack these vertically rather than horizontally but that seems like a larger change that might require change to the HTML or more drastic changes to the CSS? 🐸 Jdlrobson ( talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)