Jump to content

Talk:2024 French legislative election

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

Leader of Ensemble in the infobox[edit]

I think having Sejourné as leader of Ensemble in the infobox is misleading. All the campaign has been around the incumbent prime minister, Gabriel Attal, as his participation in the debates shows, just the same way Bardella is the candidate of RN. The same should be done for the 2022 election and change Ferrand for Élisabeth Borne. Pinging other contributors of this page to have their input. @Mason.Jones, @Muaza Husni, @Borgerland, @ValenciaThunderbolt, @David O. Johnson, @GlowstoneUnknown, @Braganza Basque mapping (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, leaders and candidates aren't the same thing, Sejourné is the party's General Secretary, Attal was just Macron's choice for Prime Minister after Borne stepped down. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attal was Macron's choice, yes, but he was also the leader of Ensemble during these elections, and this is all that matters for this infobox. T8612 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support showing Attal as leader in infobox, either alone or along with Sejourné per WP:EDITCON as it reflects the nature of the election in practice and relative visibility/participation of party leaders vs PMs in the election, cf French edition articles for 2024 and 2022 where Attal and Borne are listed in the infobox. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC) Oppose I agree with Mason.Jones's point below. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with GlowstoneUnknown. The Prime Minister can come and go at the whim of the President, making it unjust to have them in TILE, and TIE too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Glowstone and Valencia. Borne was simply tapped, not duly elected, and served for a short time. Likewise, Attal could be jettisoned tomorrow. Listing imcumbent PMs in the infobox seems overblown. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to automatically list the incumbent. But it is pretty clear Attal is Ensemble's candidate for PM this election, just like Bardella is for RN, it doesn't matter if he's the incumbent or not FreakingEmu (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Infobox specifically says "leader", not "candidate". This isn't a Presidential election, it's a Parliamentary one, and it should be listed which people are each parties' respective leaders. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 12:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Showing the prime ministerial candidates reflects the nature of the election better. It is pretty clear Attal is Ensemble's candidate for PM this election just like Bardella is for RN FreakingEmu (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make sense as other parties haven't all agreed on a "Prime Ministerial Candidate", especially NFP and LR – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. First, it is much more useful to readers to list the people who are they key figures in a campaign, even if those people are technically not the legal leader of the party. Second, there is precedent for doing this on Wikipedia. For example: 2021 German federal election (Baerbock was one of two leaders but was put forth as the chancellor candidate; Scholz was not a party leader at all), 2022 Quebec general election (Nadeau-Dubois was one of two leaders but the lead premier candidate), 2019 Polish parliamentary election (Morawiecki was the incumbent PM but not a party leader). I don't think having Attal listed "leader" is really too big a barrier to cross, because "leader" is an open-ended word with several meanings — it would not be wrong to say that Gabriel Attal is in charge of the ENS' campaign and thus leading it — but if it's really too much, well, we can always put in a footnote to clarify the situation.
Hell, as I look at the article, the LR already lists both a de jure and de facto leader, with a footnote explaining that situation… just why is putting Attall in the infobox a bridge too far for some users? — Kawnhr (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The LR de facto split during the elections, and are listed separately in most sources as a result. The infobox should reflect that. T8612 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In the case of Ensemble, the general secretary is more like an administrative position. Séjourné was definitely not the "leader" as stated in the infobox. Attal was the main candidate and de facto leader of Ensemble in the national debates and on their electoral propaganda. I think the leaders of such political infoboxes should be decided on a case-to-case basis for France, because there is no real rule, as with the British elections, from which the infobox seems to derive. T8612 (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is common practice in infoboxes to list the lead candidate rather than whoever occupies the head administrative position: German parties are listed with their Chancellor candidates rather than party chairmen, European parties are listed with Spitzenkandidaten, recent Polish elections have shown the respective PM candidates rather than party leaders. The notion that putting Stéphane Séjourné in the infobox would be remotely useful for anyone looking for an overview of this election is frankly ludicrous. Either put Gabriel Attal, who was very clearly the Ensemble candidate for PM, or nobody at all. Chuborno (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness of triangulaires/quadrangulaires table[edit]

I added a table here listing all three- and four-way races and was reverted soon thereafter, so coming to the talk page to assess other editors' opinions on this.

My justification for inclusion is that these races are notable enough to mention on their own, and the results of the vote in the first round is clearly worth including in such a table because it's related to why such races are taking place (especially in view of the now 200+ candidate withdrawals in the second round). It's not an exhaustive results table and not intended to be one very specifically because that (highlighting candidate withdrawals by constituency and configuration of race as well as the relative ranking of each candidate in triangulaires/quadrangulaires given public statements about desisting in favor of the candidates best placed to beat the RN/withdrawing dependent on the placement of the RN) the intended topic of the table, which has been the topic dominating news coverage of the elections in French media in the days after the first round.

Regardless of whether to include a full-size table, I think that a list or collapsed table of candidate withdrawals would be expected to be the kind of content which does in fact belong in an article like this. However, stripping down that content to just a list leaves a lot of questions: namely, the context in which they withdrew, which is directly related to their placement in the first round, something that inherently requires including the % and rank columns in order to contextualize that information.

I'm open to the idea of that table being kept as its own separate list and linked with {{Main}} here.

@Aréat, Davide King, Moondragon21, Braganza, and Frenchpolit: 73.169.176.209 (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information is definitely important and should be on Wikipedia though the main article page is already getting quite long so I'd say that it should be treated just like opinion poll data are in election articles with a brief summary on the main page and a link to it's own page going far more in depth like your original table did. Zemlya Drakona (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i agree these should be listed there Braganza (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree they should be listed. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the list being discussed (here) is basically the results of the first round with no additional information for a the subset of the races. And given that we don't even have the list of individual races for either the first or the second round. How is that list useful in any way? I would understand to have (probably as a sub article) the list of all the races end-to-end. Or have the triangulaires/quadrangulaires races aggregated as we are clearly perfectly fine to have those aggregates for both the first and second round. Instead, that list just provides primary partial raw data with no encyclopedic insight. --McSly (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand thinking that to those viewing it without context around French elections in regard to the first table, but the revised table here (which I added before seeing this comment) should now make the intent of the table clearer compared to the prior one (as a simple summary table of the hundreds of withdrawals in three-way/four-way races and their basic context, which avoids having to list out all notable candidates and their situations as referred to in other media coverage). The reason why this merits inclusion on its own should already be fairly clear here, as noted at various points in 14 different paragraphs and three separate bar boxes, in that it is a very notable and important aspect of this specific election compared to all others, and the hundreds of candidate withdrawals are the dominant topic in news coverage of the legislative elections in this period between the two rounds.
I do believe it's almost certainly necessary to split this content into a separate article/list as GlowstoneUnknown has already done with the results articles by department, however, rather than keeping the entire table here, since it's very heavy on its own, and even as a standalone list it's pretty heavy. In regards to the point about why results aren't aggregated in the same way for other candidates, it's just something that isn't possible with the current or a similar setup of the table and likely exceeds the MediaWiki page size limit, hence why the individual constituency results articles are also split by department here. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually have trouble with the MediaWiki limit when I tried to put all the constituencies on the same page, so I decided it'd be best to split it by department and have the individual constituencies be subsections of each page. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely the best approach (what fr.wp does), thanks for working on those – those article titles should probably be moved to match those in the {{2024 French legislative election}} template so they aren't redlinked/orphaned pages, and then connected on Wikidata to the corresponding French-language articles in fr:Catégorie:Élections législatives françaises de 2022. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFOBOX[edit]

The current infobox is disgusting. Does not display key information, namely leader seat, swing, last election results, etcetera.

The one we're utilizing right now is a product of a ghost consensus that was never reached and I propose to utilize the infobox implemented for the British elections VosleCap (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting in favor of TIE here for consistency with previous French elections and better ability to handle first/second round, though the current infobox as implemented needs some changes which I'll make now. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous contributors: @Anonymousioss, Basque mapping, Borgenland, David O. Johnson, GlowstoneUnknown, Into oblivion, Jeppiz, Mason.Jones, Moondragon21, Number 57, PLATEL, Susmuffin, and ValenciaThunderbolt:
Any preference between the TIE or TILE versions of the infobox here? Hope to resolve this quickly in view of possible WP:ITN/C and want to establish consensus here and avoid additional infobox edit warring here. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VosleCap: This is in place until the results come in. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with TIE on the basis of readability. I have problems lately with tiny tables. Borgenland (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borgenland: It will be TIE when the full results come in, using TILE is temporary. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then VosleCap (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to strenuously object over this point (I've been fine with sticking with whatever the current infobox is, as long as the information contained therein is correct) but could you please link to the discussion supporting that notion (TILE then TIE)? 73.169.176.209 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with the TIE version of the infobox. I also support modelling it off the infobox implemented for British elections. Into oblivion (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Into oblivion: It can't be modeled on the UK, as France has two round. It will be TIE once all the results come in. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be modeled after the UK. Look at how the previous French legislative elections are represented through that infobox. VosleCap (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that we use TIE, but there are two rounds. Using Scottish TIE is the best way to illustrate elections like France and ones with two different voting systems, like const. and PR seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can settle this, use TIE when the full result come in at the end. VosleCap (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VosleCap: There is nothing to settle because it was always going to be changed to TIE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we could settle it on TIE, TILE is the most stupid, horrible and information-lacking box I've ever seen VosleCap (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VosleCap: TILE is okay, but it's best placed on results pages, like I did for the Japanese results pages. I'd actually like to see a change toTIE, so that it caters to two rounds/const. and PR seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: I made a few additional changes compared to the original edit restoring TIE here, now reverted back to the old version again (notably 1) changing NFP leader to "collective leadership" – this has been a sore point but all other non-LFI members have put some distance between themselves and Mélenchon especially on the PM question; they've also shared media responsibilities, and the plan was originally to split the debates between all representatives equally, and 2) changing LR here to show Genevard/Bellamy instead of Ciotti as I think it's too misleading to show him given that his candidates are supported by the RN, and the other LR candidates associated with the results were invested by the interim leadership). I think the latter issue (as well as the Attal/Séjourné one) are better handled by TILE here unless someone can find a freely licensed image with both of them together (someone can also put two cropped images of them together as in File:Lorna Slater MSP and Patrick Harvie MSP.jpg, but it has to be at the correct ratio for the infobox). 73.169.176.209 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@73.169.176.209:
1. There is no single leader, hence collective leadership
2. The leadership is disputed between two wings
3. Séjourné is the leader of the alliance, despite Attal playing a leading role in it ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware and agree with those points, I'm just wary of additional infobox edit-warring here. Any thoughts on using "disputed leadership" in TIE for LR or does the previously linked solution seem fine? The only version I object to completely is one where Ciotti is listed but nobody else within the infobox, since his candidates are all classified under the RN side of TIE and the interim leadership of Genevard/Bellamy invested the candidates which correspond to LR here. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest with you... it should've been like that from the start, so go ahead and change it. I'll back having it for TIE too :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I made that revision here and also updated the text of the footnote in that edit. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyrics[edit]

The lyrics of the song "Je partira pas" are xenophobic and should not be quoted. At most a few lines could be given for illustration. bogle (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken templates[edit]

Templates on the page beyond around the 80th citation cannot transclude correctly anymore, showing The time allocated for running scripts has expired. instead. The page should probably be split in order for it to display correctly.
Below, the content of the NewPP report, showing an issue with the Lua time usage: 

<!--
NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw‐api‐ext.eqiad.main‐7b4b94bd6f‐7wbrl
Cached time: 20240709111342
Cache expiry: 2592000
Reduced expiry: false
Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, show‐toc]
CPU time usage: 18.387 seconds
Real time usage: 18.931 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 96433/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 1138741/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 142264/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 15/100
Expensive parser function count: 26/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 468509/5000000 bytes
Lua time usage: 10.090/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 31041014/52428800 bytes
Lua Profile:
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::sub     3000 ms       28.4%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::gsub     2760 ms       26.1%
    recursiveClone <mwInit.lua:45>                                  1000 ms        9.5%
    ?                                                                820 ms        7.8%
    type                                                             380 ms        3.6%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction      260 ms        2.5%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument      260 ms        2.5%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::find      200 ms        1.9%
    (for generator)                                                  180 ms        1.7%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::getAllExpandedArguments      180 ms        1.7%
    [others]                                                        1540 ms       14.6%
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400
-->

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article is currently linked from the main page, so a split might be pretty urgent assuming there isn't another way to fix the issue. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: About 30% of it is the table here, feel free to go ahead and split it and I can pad it out with necessary prose from this article and also add some additional contextual information. (I'm also going to split the table into several smaller ones for final results in order to account for runoff configuration, but that's a task for when I have the time to re-generate the necessary outputs from the files provided by the Ministry of the Interior.) Ignore this note, I'm going to work on this in draft space then request a move when it's ready, and I removed the relevant code on this article now. Updated NewPP report for reference:
<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw‐web.codfw.main‐687d5b87c4‐d5qwz
Cached time: 20240709214653
Cache expiry: 2592000
Reduced expiry: false
Complications: [vary‐revision‐sha1, show‐toc]
CPU time usage: 6.008 seconds
Real time usage: 6.507 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 54468/1000000
Post‐expand include size: 1018524/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 103517/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 15/100
Expensive parser function count: 27/500
Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
Unstrip post‐expand size: 1128286/5000000 bytes
Lua time usage: 3.584/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 31350206/52428800 bytes
Lua Profile:
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::sub      780 ms       22.5%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::gsub      540 ms       15.6%
    ?                                                                300 ms        8.7%
    recursiveClone <mwInit.lua:45>                                   280 ms        8.1%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction      240 ms        6.9%
    dataWrapper <mw.lua:672>                                         200 ms        5.8%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::find      180 ms        5.2%
    (for generator)                                                  100 ms        2.9%
    type                                                              80 ms        2.3%
    MediaWiki\Extension\Scribunto\Engines\LuaSandbox\LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument       80 ms        2.3%
    [others]                                                         680 ms       19.7%
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400
-->
<!--
Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00% 5294.524      1 -total
 42.51% 2250.870   1633 Template:Party_color
 27.22% 1441.300      2 Template:Reflist
 18.81%  996.162    195 Template:Cite_news
 13.91%  736.415    347 Template:HexShade
  5.91%  313.008      1 Template:Infobox_election
  4.01%  212.403     52 Template:Cite_web
  3.17%  167.624     66 Template:Efn
  2.92%  154.610      1 Template:Short_description
  2.39%  126.479      1 Template:Politics_of_France
-->

73.169.176.209 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual parties' results[edit]

Is it possible to have a table showing the final tallies for individual parties, as distinct from electoral alliances? For instance, the New Popular Front won 180 seats, but La France Insoumise won only 75, which is a relatively small portion. How many seats did the Socialists, the Communists, the Ecologists etc. each win? This is potentially important as it may affect the formation of a government or the choice of prime minister.
Note: There already is such a table for the pre-election numbers. It seems crazy to have a table for that and not for post-election numbers. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9492:4261:8A83:5507 (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't understand why only the National Rally's coalition results are broken down by party the results. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because those tallies have not been officially calculated by the Ministry of the Interior, which is the standard source for all French elections, and all other breakdowns of results by party are unofficial and depend significantly on the judgement of those working with the data by candidate (which often includes many edge cases, because candidates are not required to declare a party, and often have the official support of multiple parties regardless of their financial attachment).
I would like for it to be possible as well but those classifications in other sources can't easily be compatibilised with the existing results reported by the Ministry of the Interior (and are very often conflicting/outdated, even in different articles published around the same time – there are already many conflicting counts for the number of deputies attributed to each party in the newly elected National Assembly, and I've strained to emphasise as much as possible here that these counts vary by source and this article like 2022 only relies on the Ministry of the Interior and Le Monde tallies), which often erroneously classifies candidates under different labels, and as noted above, arbitrarily separates them in some cases but not others (for example, sometimes grouping EELV with all ecologist candidates in some years but not others, separating Ciottist candidates but not all of them, etc.)
The pre-election composition here is already pretty fragile and I had to recalculate it maybe four or five times here in a few other spreadsheets because, again, there is no official list of deputies by party membership, only by their affiliation with parliamentary groups, which is not really helpful as deputies who nominally declare they are from the same party can still sit in different groups (which is especially the case with some of these smaller parties), and it can be difficult to track down statements from elected deputies about which party they belong to if any in some cases.
The party affiliations reported on the lists of deputies in the National Assembly on fr.wp are also pretty fragile due to these reasons (and as myself and some other editors have discovered while updating tables here, can still be outdated or misattributed), and really reflects our best guess. It's much harder to do the same process with the results table because that requires re-confirming labels for all 4,010 candidates, which is just not feasible or easily verifiable anymore. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reliable source showing breakdown of votes and seats by party (rather than alliance), then it can be shown like at 2023 Polish parliamentary election#Sejm. If only the seat breakdown is available, that can be done too (using the vspan parameter of the infobox (example here). Number 57 21:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there isn't because they have to be re-calculated on the basis of classifications which other sources have to first derive themselves, and most of them prefer to reclassify a number of candidates attributed to some alliances/labels from the Ministry of the Interior to the point that they're no longer compatible with the overall totals. I haven't seen any sources attempt to recalculate vote totals within these alliances, however (only total elected deputies, which is a far easier task than re-classifying 4,010 individual candidates – and again, as mentioned above, even these totals are not compatible with those of the Ministry of Interior because there are both NFP-classified and non-NFP-classified deputies attributed to the same party in other sources), and every other news source compiling results keeps the NFP and Ensemble results collapsed. I don't see any reason to do so either because this was also the case in 2022, and the 2022 article also does not make any effort to break out those results by party for the same reason. I would note that the French-language 2022 article: fr:Élections législatives françaises de 2022#Résultats par coalition does do so but it's all entirely manual and depends on the work of many individual editors who identified party affiliations for each candidate in every constituency before summing those together, and the 2024 fr.wp version of that table isn't anywhere close to complete (and I'd argue that it suffers from much worse verifiability problems compared to just doing those calculations for 577 deputies as opposed to the usual six or seven thousand candidates). 73.169.176.209 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm just a little confused here. Are you saying that the editors for the french-language article are finding the party affiliations of the candidates themselves? Also, breakdowns by party could easily be provided from the Le Monde source, since it's a reliable one, as long as its presented as from that source and not as an official result. AnOpenBook (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct on that first point (also goes for party affiliations of individual deputies), and on the second point there isn't a vote total or share breakdown by party from Le Monde, just a total count of deputies elected. However, the classification of deputies is incompatible with displaying them in the same table as the Ministry of the Interior results because there are, in the case of both the NFP and Ensemble, deputies who were classified as part of that alliance by the Ministry of the Interior but not Le Monde and vice versa. 73.169.176.209 (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I'm pretty sure that would violate WP:OR if used in the corresponding english-language article. For the second, I don't see why that means we couldn't create a second table separate from the Ministry of the Interior results with the Le Monde projections for party composition. AnOpenBook (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_French_legislative_election&oldid=1234147578"