Talk:1989 South African general election

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Untitled

the labor union solidarity/solidariteit is not the same organisation as the former indian ZA party with this name which participated in these elections! wikilink has to be adjusted.--Severino (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results by electoral division

House of Assembly results by electoral division (parliamentary constituency) as published on the Government Gazette are now included in the article. Note that nationwide vote totals - unchanged since they are identical to those published on the Government Gazette - exclude results from the tied Fauresmith division (subsequently awarded to the National Party), and that the registered voters total also excludes figures from the constituencies of Sandton and Yeoville, where no voting took place since they were won unopposed by the Democratic Party. Manuel Alvarez-Rivera (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changed into list without reason?

The previous Infobox(including images and graphics) has been changed into listing of election results. Excluding the House of delegates, no more than four parties (plus independents) were elected. Four parties (plus independents) can be, in my opinion, shown in an „illustrated“ Infobox without a reader loosing oversight. I do not understand the reason for displaying the election results (except for the house of delegates) in such a list. RandonDjion (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to revisit these election infoboxes. These new ones are absolutely hideous. Carlp941 (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the talk page for the most recent SA elections. There's a reason there. Weigh in if you feel consensus has not been reached. Carlp941 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

full protection 2 days edit warring

This has gotten completely ridiculous. Full protection for two days. Please discuss rather than reverting. Valereee (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on man, what was wrong with my edit? more over is absolutely idiotic that the “default” edit should be that of number 57, as if he wasn’t part of all of this, and especially because no consensus has already been reached so why should be his way the standard? Siglæ (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that protection could be warranted in order to prevent further edit warring, but please Valereee consider that this was the edit that sparked the edit warring here in the ensuing days (just as similar efforts across vast swathes of elections without clear cause have sparked massive edit warring across them). You reverted this back to the actual contentious version. There was no consensus for this edit, which changed a version which had been stable for years (and no, edit summaries are not appropiate for attaining consensus). A full-fledged discussion around this issue is taking place at Talk:2024 South African general election#Infobox legislative election instead of Infobox election. Impru20^talk 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree with everything said Siglæ (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, WP:WRONGVERSION. My default at this lamest ever edit war over multiple pages is whatever seems like predates the most recent edit war -- most of which seems to have occurred after various social media rants appeared -- that is also the least damaging to any unrelated intervening helpful edits. All I am trying to do is stop this stupid edit war. There is absolutely no excuse for it. It literally does not matter whether the "wrong version" is what's on the page for a few days while the issue gets discussed. It's kind of absurd I should have to full protect this for even two days, as the EC editors here should be well aware of that. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did not intervene in the edit war (and very specifically not in this article).

2) It is not actually as you say. You reverted a previous edit (claiming that you were restoring to the "version before edit warring", which was factually untrue as the imposition of that version was what sparked the edit warring across SA election articles), and only then protected the page. It is not that "the wrong version" got caught in the middle of the protection: you did choose one of the versions, then locked up the page to prevent anyone from editing it any further.

3) The discussion at Talk:2024 South African general election#Infobox legislative election instead of Infobox election (the one whose outcome we all were seemingly waiting for to decide on this article's outcome) has ended with a frontal rejection of the edits and in support of keeping the original version. So yes: it is the version against consensus the one that is currently in place here. Impru20^talk 12:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Impru20, I didn't mean to get snippy with you, and yes, I know you weren't involved. I've been chasing this stupid edit war across 8 pages for like a week now, and there were like five reverts here yesterday, including two by EC editors, which I find really problematic. When I protect, in general I try to default to whatever most recent version predates the current edit war, which started yesterday, which helps in retaining productive intermediate edits. I don't really look at where the roots started, as that turns a simple goal (stop the edit war, which is an admin task) into a much more complicated one (understand the edit war, which is not an admin task). FTR, I don't care even a little bit which infobox is used, I think the whole idea of arguing over infoboxes is just silly, and I'm always bemused that people feel strongly enough about them to get canvassed in from rants on social media. I'm concerned solely with the edit war itself because the back and forth is disruptive to other productive editing and confusing to readers.

I'll go lift the protection. The ones on the other pages are all just semis, so not as much of an issue. Valereee (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Agreeing with you on this (though looking at the general picture, one can easily discern that while the massive edit warring took place around yesterday, it was a result of a chain of events that had as an immediate precedent the aggressive edits on SA election articles). The issue should be discussed more throughly, but as of now it seems like restoring back to the stable version is the way to go. Impru20^talk 15:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consesus reached, revert changes?

Now that Consesus has been reached on the 2024 election talk page, can we implement TIE, at least for the National Assembly election in this page as well? Can the limitations be removed? @Valereee@Czello Siglæ (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of delegates and representative

Ideas on How (If?) should we put the result of this other two election in the introductory infobox? I believe we should do a new TIE infobox for each and slowly modify also the previous election info boxes for this Houses, but I don’t think I am able to do it Siglæ (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest stacking the HoD and HoR results as TILE sections under the main HoA TIE infobox. Will mock this up in a second. CipherRephic (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including the houses of delegates and representatives in the infobox by way of TILE

Hi all,

I'm aware bringing up infoboxes again is a bit like poking the hornet's nest, but as @Siglæ pointed out the TIE infobox doesn't have the HoD and HoR results which raises the question of whether or not to include them and how to represent them if we do. Due to the previous edit war I don't think it's unreasonable to approach this with an abundance of caution so before we make any changes to the infobox we ought to find a solid consensus. As far as I can see there are three solid options:

A) Not including these results in the infobox
B) Using TILE sections to show the results (my preferred solution) as shown here
C) Using TIE sections to show the results as shown here,
or Something else entirely - suggestions welcome.

CipherRephic (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote C for sake of consistency. I wonder, would it make sense to have the TIE house of delegates with 6 parties? Siglæ (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my concern with using TIE with six parties is that it might confer onto the house of delegates an undue sense of importance, since it'd make it the largest box out of the three, but i'd concede that's a fairly flimsy argument in the grand scheme of things. CipherRephic (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see your point, I believe is better keeping the 3 parties Siglæ (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also support option C for consistency sake. Maybe we could get some pictures of the HoD and HoR party leaders too. BrendonJH (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option B is my pick. The focus of this election is obviously going to be the HoA, with the other houses being more or less politically unimportant (though it is still important to show their results). TIE results would distract and bulk up the infobox, and as CipherRephic mentioned, convey more importance to the other two houses than was actually the case. I would rather see that party leaders are left out for the TILE results here. Pave Paws (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Option B. Glide08 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]