Talk:2024 Botswana general election

Outgoing and incoming members

Hi, Number 57.

Please explain what the exact issue is here. I don't understand why you're so insistent on me not using the 'elected_members' and 'outgoing_members' parameters. They provide useful information for readers that is not included anywhere else in the rest of the article. I would like to understand what would render the use of the parameter unnecessary. Your sole argument for its removal has been its supposed 'clutter'. Unless there is another factor (forgive me for assumptions), it seems you may consider Botswana less significant than countries like Australia, Spain etc., warranting a different treatment in applying the parameter. However, such a notion would be arbitrary and thus render your argument invalid. I hope that my assumption is incorrect. I kindly request clarification on this point.

Cheers Aficionado538 (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for starting a discussion rather than continuing to revert (as sadly many editors do). The reasons I removed the links are:

• Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox is meant to contain information that summarises the article and "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". I don't believe these links qualify for inclusion as they are not summarising anything in the article, nor are they vital to understanding the outcome of the election. They are purely navigational links, which can go somewhere else in the article, and I think the most appropriate place for that is either the "Results" or the "See also" section.
• Specifically with regards to the outgoing members, I don't see how outgoing members are relevant to an election. I wouldn't even include this link in a see also section.

I absolutely don't consider Botswana less significant – I think I have created most of the election articles on Botswana (and got one of the referendums featured on the main page in the WP:DYK section). I rarely edit election articles on countries like Australia or Spain and prefer to concentrate on topics where there is a dearth of other editors contributing. And to reassure further, I remove these types of links whenever I see them on election articles I do edit. Please don't make assumptions about editors going forwards, as frankly it's quite insulting; had you looked at the edit history of Botswana election articles, you'd perhaps not come to that conclusion. Cheers, Number 57 10:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I must say I disagree with your reasoning for removing the 'elected_members' and 'outgoing_members' parameters (both apply to 2019, the latter to 2024). While you cite MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as a guideline, it is important to note that guidelines are not rigid rules but rather general principles to be interpreted and applied in context. In this case, the inclusion of these parameters provides the consistency across this type of election infobox as multiple other countries include such parameters. This is a similar point stressed in WP:INFOBOXNAME (Design inconsistency).

You argue that these links do not summarize the article or contribute to understanding the election outcome. However, I contend that the 'elected_members' parameter offers valuable context by highlighting the individuals who were returned in the new election, allowing readers to compare the old and new leadership. It provides a quick reference for readers who are interested in knowing the current MPs and other relevant information in relation to the current Parliamentary term. Similarly, the 'outgoing_members' parameter serves as a succinct summary of the individuals who have been returned in the previous election.

Regarding your assertion that outgoing members are irrelevant to an election, I respectfully disagree. Whilst you emphasize the navigational nature of these links, it is worth noting that infoboxes serve as an exhibit of key information. By including the 'elected_members' and 'outgoing_members' parameters, we provide said key information in a navigational and concise manner, thereby saving readers from having to search elsewhere in the Wiki for this information.

I appreciate your dedication to creating and editing election articles over your nearly two decades of experience, including those on Botswana. I extend my sincere apologies for arguing in bad faith. However, I continue to insist that your removal of these parameters is unnecessary and limits the completeness of the article. It is essential to consider the value they bring in terms of contextualizing the election, its outcome and milieu in facilitating the reader's understanding. I kindly request that you reconsider your position and allow the inclusion of the 'elected_members' and 'outgoing_members' parameters.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Aficionado538 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

By all means, those links (including the outgoing ones if you really insist, although I still think it's completely unnecessary) can be in the article. However, they do not have to be in the infobox. Infoboxes are supposed to be minimalist – they are not there to cram in as much information and links as you can – it cannot be stressed enough that the less information in the infobox, the better. Put the links in the see also section. Number 57 12:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It does not look cluttered and nothing is getting "crammed" anywhere. It's fine that you personally prefer to keep it out because you think that looks nicer, but at the end of the day that is just your subjective opinion about aesthetics, and keeping things looking "clean" is not good enough a reason to remove useful parameters from an infobox. Especially when this class of infobox has been specifically designed so it can include this information. So there really is nothing to argue about here, the information should be included in the infobox. This should not have been an issue in the first place, there is no need to try gatekeeping this infobox. Μαρκος Δ 12:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm specifically citing a guideline here, and "useful" is a subjective opinion – I don't think it's useful. No idea what you mean by gatekeeping, but I assume it's one of your regular digs at me. Number 57 13:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Μαρκος Δ here. There really shouldn't be an argument to begin with. Why am I at fault for filling in a parameter that is still used in many articles to this day? One thing is clear: this is a subjective issue, and quite frankly, it seems that I can't change your mind on this. Why should I be prevented from adding such information because of one person's opinion? Come on, man, stop riding roughshod over such a minuscule issue. Aficionado538 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

To answer your last question, because WP:BRD applies. If it's such a miniscule issue, why have you written the wall of text above? I care about making election articles on Wikipedia as accessible and informative as possible. IMO adding these links reduces the accessibility of articles by making the infobox more cluttered and less easy to read at a glance. Number 57 14:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You say you "care about making election articles on Wikipedia as accessible…" and that the links reduce accessibility. However, adding more info on an infobox doesn't impede accessibility in any way. One can easily access the article and use it as easily as possible, with or without the parameters. In fact, adding this parameter(s) achieves your supposed goal of making articles as "informative as possible". You aren't making any sense TBH. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Accessibility includes things being set out clearly and concisely. Cluttering an infobox with more and more information makes it less accessible. And as I've repeatedly said, the link can go elsewhere in the article; I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. Again, I'll quote MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

A link to the list of outgoing and/or elected members is not "key facts".

Also relevant is the MOS:INFOBOXUSE part of the guidance:

Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

Therefore parameters being used in one article does not mean they should be used in another; it is up to consensus gained at individual articles. Number 57 15:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, and in this case there are 2 votes against 1. The information should be included. Μαρκος Δ 16:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In this case, "useful" is not subjective. This article is about an election. The infobox in election articles is meant to show who has won the offices up for election. So to include a link to which persons have secured seats fulfills one of the most fundamental purposes of the infobox. I said "gatekeeping" because it is clear from both your behavior and from your comments above that you feel like you alone get to decide how this article should be. You need to remember that this is a collaborative project, and you do not own this article or the infobox, nor any of this content or information, nor do you single-handedly get to decide anything at all really. You do not get to block highly relative information from being included because you think it looks "neat" to leave it out. Please take a look at Wikipedia:OWN.

Let me tell you this: the fact that you have created/edited this and that many articles which have won these or those awards is 100% completely uninteresting to anyone here, and it does not give you any more authority on this subject than any other user. It seems you wish to block this information from being included simply because that is how you have decided that you like to have it. Because your only argument other than that, that it makes the infobox "less accessible," is a very strange argument, let's be serious here. Let me suggest the following as a solution to this: @Number 57, if you have a problem with this information being included in the infobox, I kindly suggest you go and take that up on the infobox talk page instead. If you believe that some of the parameters in the infobox do not belong, then go and petition for the infobox itself to be changed. Because as long as "elected members" is a parameter in this infobox, it can, and should, be used by anyone. Blocking certain, commonly-used parts of an infobox from being used is not defensible, unfortunately. Μαρκος Δ 16:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Useful in the infobox is subjective; the link can go anywhere in the article. And regarding your latter claim that parameters "can and should be used", I will refer you back to my quotation from MOS:INFOBOXUSE regarding consensus being determined at individual articles on whether to use parameters or not. Weird comment about awards, but sadly I guess you always need to try and make it personal. Cheers, Number 57 16:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The infobox should contain the most essential information. In an election, who has been elected is essential information. The parameter exists for us to use it. If you think the infobox should not contain it, you can petition for the infobox to be changed. End of discussion, really. I suggest that if you don't want people to tell you that your unrelated contributions elsewhere are irrelevant here, you might try to avoid bringing up those unrelated contributions in the first place. Cheers, Μαρκος Δ 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, the guideline is very clear: Usage is determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion. If you don't agree with the guideline, you can petition for the guidance to be changed. Re the "unrelated contributions" I was responding to the charge that I "may consider Botswana less significant" with evidence that I don't. Cheers, Number 57 16:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You are clearly in favor of a blanket exclusion of that information from every single infobox of this class. So instead of going around and obstructing its inclusion on each and every individual article, I do, again, recommend you go to the template talk page and take it up there, that way we can all avoid wasting so much time on this issue. Regardless, since you seem to be in the minority on this page, I will give it a moment and then we can add the information back in. Cheers, Μαρκος Δ 16:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I support including the parameter since it is already consensus to do so (look at the dozens of articles that already include it and the fact that it is a parameter in the first place). Number 57 is the one standing against consensus. Jon698 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, then since the only user who appears to have a problem with it is the one above, and we seem to have a majority in favor of including the information in the infobox, I will revert to the last version by @Aficionado538. Μαρκος Δ 18:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks ;‑). Aficionado538 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't fight anyone, the previous thread got talk about it in YouTube videos

I hoping that is the last time this thing happened, and hopefully this thing won't happen again. 138.75.84.38 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

LMFAO Aficionado538 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aficionado538 fr the video was so funny. added it under the WPBS. 48JCL^{[citation needed][dubious – discuss]} 17:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I hope it doesn't happen again Justhereforresearch (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Duma Boko

@Number 57 and Aréat: I have seen no source that Duma Boko have won at least 35 seats. If not, an indirect election could be needed. Panam2014 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

He has been declared president-elect by the Chief Justice. Only 31 seats was required. Number 57 15:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, even the article says that. Justhereforresearch (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Results table

Disappointed but entirely unsurprised to see this is an issue given the previous WP:OWN-related issues. Can we please just use the same results table as every other article in the series rather than play stupid games.

The repeated removal of Category:Election and referendum articles with incomplete results I think demonstrates that this is simply reverting for the sake of it. Number 57 15:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about these others issues, but I agree it's better to keep the widely used tables. I don't see a reason to switch to a manually filled one, which is prone to human errors. --Aréat (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense Justhereforresearch (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

And I was wondering why there was something visually off and confusing while reading the gigantic table. Borgenland (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Aficionado538 and Number 57: do you have a source for the seats? Panam2014 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Source for the UDC candidates' individual party affiliations

I don't understand the constant removal for the additional citation request when it's clear that there's no source linking which of the UDC members belong to which individual party. UDC may be an alliance and it does show in the source that the affiliations that those members do belong from the UDC, but it's not clear from which party under the alliance they belong.

I would certainly appreciate it if anyone can source out that at all because it shows on the results separate votes for each party under the alliance. Where does this come from? Kirill.alx (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)