Talk:1919 Armenian parliamentary election

Initial Membership

@Number 57: I appreciate your efforts to improve the table however I think we should restore the original configuration without the sortable table. The way you have formatted it makes the list too long for the page and not very reader-friendly. Additionally, even if it weren't too long for the page, it's not really useful to have it sortable seeing as the first table I made had already organised the members into parties/affiliations and by their seat position / alphabetical order of their names, therefore, I don't believe anything further than that is useful or necessary. Also, the first table I made showed all the members in an organised and concise/easy to read format which is preferred for a wiki page. If that's ok with you I think we should revert the table to the initial one, let me know what you think. Nunuxxx (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue with the previous layout is that it on narrow screens (like mobile devices), the table is pretty much unreadable. You cannot see the party affiliations, and every name ends up being spread over 2-3 rows. Even when viewed on a computer, the party affiliations aren't immediately obvious until you work out how it's been done. Cheers, Number 57 14:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thanks for the reply, I understand the issue with the wider table style on mobile devices and have thus adjusted the table to remain sortable yet retain aesthetic and other elements to a standard I think is satisfactory and appropriate for the page. Cheers. Nunuxxx (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I've undone the changes, because:

• Names should match article titles – you should not be trying to standardise the spelling. Use Sargis Manasyan, not pipe it to become Sargis Manasian.
• The numbering seems to be pointless and/or WP:OR
• I can't see a valid reason for not using the full party names

Also, you don't need to ping me, as this page is on my watchlst. Cheers, Number 57 10:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs) Hello again, apologies for the ping, I didn't realise you could notice my responses without it. To answer your concerns:

• The names of the deputies are written exactly as they appear in the source material, and they are linked to the individuals' pages to avoid ambiguation regarding their identities.
• The numbering of the deputies also originates from the source material and relates to their exact seat position in the chamber of the parliament
• The full party names make the cells unnecessarily long which is detrimental to the wiki page for the exact reason you provided earlier, that due to the extra width the cells and the table disfigure in the mobile web browser view.

In light of the concise answers I provided to the concerns you've raised, I think it's appropriate to restore the previous arrangement. I'd also ask respectfully that you avoid in future interceding on this particular table in light of the fact you did not create it, nor did you interpret the original source to appropriately be making such radical adjustments. Thanks. Nunuxxx (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on the numbers; I'm happy for them to be included. However, there's still no good reason to avoid the full party names (they are not 'unnecessarily long' and they match the results table above), and certainly not to give people different names to their articles (how the source used spells those names does not determine how we have to spell it on this article).

Your last sentence is troubling, and you may want to familiarise yourself with WP:OWN; the fact that you created the table initially gives you no rights whatsoever to tell others what they can and cannot do.

And again, you do not have mention me. I have this page on my watchlist and I will see any comment you leave here. Number 57 13:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

pic

I have added a broader image instead which is relevant to all of the article. AntEgo (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is a better image to use. It's effectively a description of the election timeline, but not in English, so of no real use to readers of en.wiki. On the other hand, the ballot paper is a useful example of what ballot papers looked like in this election. Number 57 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Number 57. I think my added image represents the article way more broadly for the following reasons: 1) it's the Election timeline published by the Central Electoral Commission of 1919, so relevant to all the parties and the article in general; 2) yes it's not in English but so is the picture you restored not in English, so I don't get how you can use this to argue for your revision; and 3) the ballot paper example pic is for the number 7 muslim non-party group, we have no idea how ballots of other parties looked like (replying to your "useful example of what ballot papers looked like"), so this is just an example pic of extreme minority party ballot not all ballots, and by extreme minority I mean 3 seats out of 80 (less than 4% of the seats) - how does this represent the article in any significant way? This minority party ballot pic henceforth would be insignificant and undue, and my added picture of Election timeline published by the Central Electoral Commission of 1919 is relevant to all of the article, not just a very small part of it (and again, the picture's language aspect argument is invalid because neither picture is in English and Armenia didn't use English in documents at that time). Thank you for understanding. AntEgo (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The timeline is definitely of interest, but a picture of it is just not appropriate. Normal practice is for the timeline to be transcribed into the article (which I would encourage you to do if you can translate what is written). And it is pretty common to have photos of ballot papers from elections so readers can see what they looked like. Number 57 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on what is my added picture "not appropriate"? Not only it is appropriate, but it is more appropriate than the current picture and I gave 3 clear-cut reasons for it which you haven't addressed with all respect; most notably this ballot picture clearly violating the undue policy, and compared to the more broad and relevant to all the aspects of the article (not just a small minority) picture, the latter is clearly the better choice in terms of due weight and everything. AntEgo (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it's a page from a book or guide that could just be transcribed into the article to explain the election timeline (which is not something that could be done for the ballot paper). The ballot paper is not "undue" in any way I can see. It is just an example of the ballot papers used in the election. Number 57 14:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)