Talk:2016 Taiwanese presidential election

To include "Republic of China" in the lead section and infobox

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.

• Oppose The community has agreed (on several occasions) that the country is called Taiwan. The only other comparable example I can think of is Transnistria, which is officially named the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. In that country's case we use the country's common name in election articles and infoboxes (e.g. 2016). Number 57 09:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The community has decided that "Taiwan" to be used in the title of the articles related to the country that governs Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu which is called Republic of China, but it is not decided that the term "Republic of China" must be eliminated entirely from the infobox and lead section of the election articles. Moreover, the "wikipedia community" (in this sense often a handful of users without sufficient discussion nor interested parties involved) agrees on does not change the fact that its official name is called the Republic of China and it has no reason to ban it from being mentioned in the article. Take Macedonia for example, in which it is recognized by the international community as "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but the official name "Republic of Macedonia" is still used in the election articles. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't see why anyone would want to include it, unless they were trying to labour the point that the country isn't called Taiwan, in which case they are probably violating WP:POINT.

I don't know why you've cited Macedonia, as nothing there supports your case for using Republic of China in the infobox or the text; in terms of the infoboxes, the articles use the format 2009 Macedonian presidential election/2014 Macedonian general election and the infoboxes use the matching term "Macedonian". In terms of the text, there isn't a valid comparison between using Republic of Macedonia and Republic of China because the former is the actual location of the article on the country whilst the latter is only a redirect to Taiwan. Number 57 10:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No one is trying to remove "Taiwan" from the article but it is only you that trying to remove "Republic of China", unless you are trying to say the official name of the country commonly known as the Taiwan is not the Republic of China in which you are deadly wrong to a extent that is absurd. The Macedonian case is just to show you that the commonly known name of a country does not necessarily match the title of the election article or infobox and there are multiple examples that the title of the infobox does not match the title of the article so your own obsession with "consistency" is full of flaws and it does not apply. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It simply unnecessary to have "Republic of China" in the infobox or lead of article. I think you're tying yourself in knots over the Macedonia example, but we'll see what others think. I'd rather concentrate on contributing some new articles than continue to go round in circles here. Number 57 13:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan is frequently referred to as Republic of China (Taiwan) in government publications. However, putting that full name in the infobox seems like it would be cumbersome and unecessarily long. Perhaps we could leave the Infobox as is and update the article text to include the full name? S-1-5-7 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that all of the election-related articles use the title "Taiwan" in them. This includes ones that were done when the ROC was China for the UN and/or many countries (e.g., 1969 Taiwan legislative election and 1980 Taiwan legislative election.)S-1-5-7 (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no 'country' called 'Taiwan'. That's a plain fact, and anyone who claims anything to the contrary is a PoV pushing advocate. There is the Republic of China, which controls territories including Taiwan Province and parts of Fujian Province, and which claims to be the legitimate government of all of China. The Republic of China is commonly referred to as 'Taiwan' for diplomatic reasons, but such usage does not imply the existence of a 'country' called 'Taiwan', it only references the fact that rump RoC government's largest territorial holding is the island of 'Taiwan'. The way you write, Number 57, is as if there were a 'Republic of Taiwan', and that's a political opinion (a PoV), not any kind of fact. These elections are being held under the auspices of the RoC, and therefore, the infobox and body text should make that clear at first mention with "Republic of China (Taiwan)". RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Your entire premise falls down on the fact that the community has decided that the country should be referred to as Taiwan. And it's absurd to claim that I have suggested the country is called the Republic of Taiwan. Number 57 16:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not absurd, as you keep claiming there is some 'country' called 'Taiwan'. There is no country. The only country is China, of which there are two rival governments. One, which is based in Taiwan and called the Republic of China, is commonly referred to as 'Taiwan' on the basis of its largest territorial holding, and indeed, it has been determined that the Wikipedia article should be called 'Taiwan', in line with Wikipedia policies. However, that does not erase the facts of the matter...it does not mean we should oversimplify the text in the bodies of articles, giving readers the false impression that there is a country called 'Taiwan'. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time or inclination to go round in circles over this for days or weeks, but I'll just restate my total disagreement with your claims and end it there and let others make their mind up. Number 57 16:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Mixed. Per my comment above, I would change the lead text to say Republic of China (Taiwan) as that is how most government publications refer to it and leave the Infobox title as is to the match the article title.S-1-5-7 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Mixed. Same opinion with S-1-5-7, change the lead text, keep the infobox title as it is. South Korea's election pages doesn't mention the formal name of the country, Republic of Korea. Refer to 2017 South Korean presidential election. Ramone122
  • Doesn't that suggest that the Taiwanese articles also don't need to mention the formal name of the country? Number 57 13:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Taiwan itself is a province of the ROC, so definitely adding ROC in the lead text would be less misleading that Taiwan is a country itself. For South Korea case, South Korea = ROK, ROK = South Korea. For Taiwan case, it's not. Ramone122 10:30 18 January 2019
• Mixed – per my comments above and S-1-5-7. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment So far it looks like there is consensus to exclude ROC from the infobox, but include it in the intro. This wording by Ramone122 would appear to be a sensible way forward on the latter, as it uses the names of the positions (President of the Republic of China/Vice-President of the Republic of China) and the country (Taiwan) as they appear on Wikipedia, without needing to resort to some kind of Derry/Londonderry situation. Number 57 10:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• 'Mixed. As Taiwan is Democratic its a yes, but during the votes of 1971 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, most of the countries voted yes, but for the countries which voted no is more than the half of the countries which voted yes. Plus maybe instead of Republic of China, we could just do it as Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith chau yet (talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Infobox map

@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)

Precisely. I can't understand why you kept changing some of the maps only, thus breaking the general consistency that was in place already among Taiwanese presidential election articles. Impru20^talk 11:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean some years only? Obviously more recent elections are more important than distant ones (1788–89 United States presidential election). The priority is having consistency for recent elections of all types, but eventually all years. Ythlev (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean Taiwanese presidential elections, which you started changing on your own. Consistency with other countries' elections is neither possible nor desirable. So far, since last time I edited you have been reverted by another IP user, so it seems that it's now three users repealing your changes. You should seriously consider seeking a consensus for your changes before trying to re-add those again. Impru20^talk 12:28, 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'm sorry but I'm not able to understand what is the apparent connection with "longer ago elections" you are trying to imply. The election articles you are editing refer to recent elections, not old ones. You have edited some of these but not others. Consistency applies to all or at least a great deal of the elections, not to two or three you unilaterally wish to cherry-pick, and it's clear you don't have a consensus on the issue. Impru20^talk 16:44, 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)

It wasn't controversial until you came along, so we're discussing right now. 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 OR So 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 distribution Exactly. 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 along From 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.

On the administrative unit to show, I wouldn't mind administrative divisions to be shown if vote share strenght was shown, and I don't mind either for KMT to use the template's blue. But it's not such a big deal over information/presentation purposes and breaking currently established consistency on Taiwanese presidential articles so as to justify such a change as you propose. Impru20^talk 02:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

What I say is contradictory is you arguing against the current map because of it being "made-up", then you yourself proposing a number of made-up solution yourself on the color issue. Or you adding back the same image you now dub as OR (it doesn't matter if it was in Chinese or in English; OR is OR whatever the language, and if you dub it as OR now, then it means you were consciously adding OR content back at the time. In the end this is not an issue because this is not OR, but it shows the contradiction).

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)

I think you are mistaking edits on already existing images (i.e. photo manipulation) with images created by Wikipedians (such as charts, graphics and maps, such as this case). The latter constitutes a case of WP:OI and, thus, not original research. In this case, a map was created with a given set of color shades; you may agree with these shades or not, but it is not OR. Otherwise, under your interpretation, your own uploaded images would be made-up because you would be adding filters ("widely-used" would be tricky to determine, given that you are using your own set of colors as well) to an already pre-existing image (i.e. the map of Taiwan). This is obviously not logical.

Nonetheless, when I told you about you being contradictory because of proposing "made-up" solutions yourself, I meant what you said about 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 So, 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)

Again, this is like trying to argue over the sky being blue. If you think the shade of blue used is arbitrary to the point of constituting OR, you should maybe provide a source that establishes that the KMT prefers using such a very specific "wavelenght" to define its preferred blue tone (which you will never find, obviously, because of this and this. Could you please count how many shades of blue or "wavelengths" do the party use over there?). Otherwise, you are probably making a mountain out of a molehill (one that may not even exist, btw). Impru20^talk 20:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there isn't a single preferred colour, but there is a most commonly used colour, or the colour used in the most important place. Anything not made up by the editor is less objectionable. Ythlev (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Information on infobox map

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)

By large I meant large in area; thank you for allowing me to clarify. The big picture is already shown in the total numbers and the infobox map should show more than that. Whether the results are close to "flipping" after the fact seems moot; flipping in terms of party swing from the previous election would be more relevant. Distribution of the vote difference is worth mapping, though if one wishes to do a mental exercise in adding up all the vote differences in all 369 township-level units, a map similar to the "size of lead" map in the NYT interactive [10] would be more precise. My main concern though, to reiterate, is that vote lead does not translate to the strength of the ticket in a particular district (and this happened in 3/7 presidential elections to date), which can be extremely misleading for the casual article reader looking at the map at first glance. Because of this, I still do not believe the current series of maps should be used in the infobox (though it is worth including in the maps section). Third-placed candidates can lead in lower-level jurisdictions, just like the county-level results in the 1992 United States presidential election. Tjs2012 (talk) 05:59, 3 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)

1. Are you the same commenter as the previous reply? It is hard for me to keep track of opinions if multiple IPs are being used in attempt to inflate the number of opinions.

2. Now I am confused whether the big picture is more important or whether township-level results are more important to the anonymous user.

3. I thank the anonymous user for recognizing the relevance of defining swing as compared to the previous election. That is why one needs to be explicit in defining the two parties in the calculation and that a map showing "swing," especially in Taiwan, should not be used in the infobox.

4. I disagree in using a discrete number of shades to show vote lead. This is imprecise, and in the infobox most likely only serves to highlight where the urban areas are, misleading readers.

5. I also do not understand why third-placed candidates are not important to the anonymous user, since in Taiwan a simple majority decides the winner (unlike France) and we have seen candidates with regional appeal, not uncommon in the township level! In addition, there have been a case (2000) where three candidates each had significant support.

6. I also wonder why county-level maps are not used, where in Taiwan's case only the 1996 elections will have problems in this current (but flawed IMHO) setup. I hope there will be volunteers to draw county-level maps for the infobox.

7. None of the most recent presidential election articles of countries listed here used vote lead in their infobox maps. This is clear what the "consensus," if there will ever be one, is in the community.

Tjs2012 (talk) 18:57, 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)

1. I thank the anonymous user for the clarification.

2. The key in my vote lead map has 3 circle sizes but upon examination the anonymous user should have noticed that all the circles in the map itself all vary. The key has to be concise, as is any infobox. I am glad that the anonymous user also agrees now that the vote lead maps have the flaw of skewing towards urban areas. That is why I believe they should not be in the infobox.

3. Experts in political science do. He is the 3rd-party candidate with the most support in the past 40 years. Also, I am sure the many people who follow the 2020 United States presidential election avidly in the past months must have heard of him while watching the news. Also, does the anonymous user not know Lien Chan? In the US (if that is what the anonymous user is referring to), Ralph Nader, though garnering less support than Perot, still had enough support that in the end drew the ire of many Democrats, thinking that he cost Al Gore the election.

4. That is exactly the point, where the infobox should be concise, does not need too many details, and should not mislead. Help:Infobox

5. Then I am confused why the anonymous user(s) is/are insisting on a "consensus." The convention is quite clear in my opinion.

6. To reiterate, my point is that the current map should not be used in the infobox, but has value to be shown in the article body. The consensus in the community is to either show just the vote leader or the vote share in administrative subdivisions. I am open towards whether that should be county-level or township-level units, but county-level units are fine for at-a-glance purposes. I am also fine towards any Wikipedian's personal artistic inclinations (I see that the previous section was debating which shade of blue or green to use!).

Tjs2012 (talk) 17:33, 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)

It looks like we are going somewhere. I thank the anonymous user! I definitely agree that Wikipedia is not just for experts (though Ross Perot is quite famous in my opinion!). The point is that third-party candidates with significant support are not uncommon in Taiwanese presidential electoral history. Getting back to maps and the infobox, I have never discounted the value of vote lead maps, just that they should be taken together with other maps. On the other hand, simple county-level leader maps in the infobox (my original proposal #1, which the anonymous user did not seem to object to on other pages) will be able to provide the information in the examples that the anonymous user has given (2012, 2016). The county-level units are similarly sized (thus will not be skewed towards the indigenous townships at first glance) and the population range (200k~4M, ~1 order of magnitude, with the outlying islands being exceptions) is more reasonable than at the township level (hundreds~500k, 3 orders of magnitude). For those interested in all 368 areas, they can refer to the maps section. Tjs2012 (talk) 17:06, 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)

1. That user never rescinded his/her position on the amount of information, which is inline with Wikipedia policy. Help:Infobox

2. Please back up your viewpoints or else I will treat them as opinion. We are focused on the presidential election here, specifically on the map. That is why county-level leader maps look like a good compromise between my viewpoints and the anonymous user's. I've had my hopes up but now sadly I am not sure whether the anonymous user is interested in constructive dialogue.

3. In future election cycles if we see candidates performing differently we can create a different set of maps that better reflect the overarching characteristics of Taiwanese presidential elections. That's my point.

Tjs2012 (talk) 16:40, 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)

It's pretty clear (from the amount of edit warring I'm seeing on Taiwanese election articles in the last month) that you are Ythlev, so why not just use your account to edit (as your previous block for edit warring expired). Number 57 15:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to invite @User:Paper9oll to this forum and hopefully @User:Number 57 would also kindly take the time to participate so that we have third opinions. Looking at the edit descriptions made the last day, again I should point out that Wikipedia is a living document, so changes should be expected-- I am not even proposing removal of the nicely drawn map from the article! However, I do not see the intentions of the anonymous user except their actions of disagreeing to every proposal I am making. They never explicitly stated that they want the current set of maps to remain in the infobox either. It would be even more troubling if the anonymous user is actually an IP sockpuppet! However, in assuming good faith from the anonymous user, I hope that the anonymous user can explicitly lay out their intentions, what they wish for, what is acceptable in hopes of working towards a solution. Again, I have given my rationale and proposed alternatives. Tjs2012 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tjs2012: Hi, as per my summary edits. I agree with you that Infobox image shouldn't be hard to read/understand and should be self-explanatory. If IP user disagree and would like to have complicated image, I would recommend IP user to expand it by including legends to explain the image. See 2020 US Presidential Election infobox (the conflicting situation here is similar, however 2020 US Presidential Election infobox explained the hard to read/understand image with legends which is what I recommend if no consensus can be reach as that is another solution.) However, if IP user is sockpuppet, please immediately report to WP:AIV if you can 100% confirm it's sockpuppet else open WP:SPI to CheckUser if unsure, as their behavior is consider disruptive editing. There's no need to AGF with sockpuppet. – Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 17:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)