Talk:2014 Latvian parliamentary election

Change figures for Unity

There have been some repeated changes to the seat change figures for Unity. The question is what do we base this figure on?

1. The change in the Unity seat numbers alone
2. The change in Unity and Reform seat numbers combined

Personally, I think it has to be option 2. Unity and Reform signed an agreement to co-operate for these elections - Reform would not run itself, but would have candidates on the Unity list. Number 57 20:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, option 2 is the obvious option. But maybe we should remove this field (and remove the field in the results box) for a week or so until other news sources report? Ascertain what reliable sources say and reflect that. Bastin 01:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

We could use a footnote in the table to make clear to the reader what we're doing. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Number 57 09:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait and see. But my gut instinct would be to show the change figures only relative to Unity with an explanatory footnote about the link with the Reform party. None of the opinion polls before the co-operation agreement had showed any serious decline in support for Unity and sources are already reporting an increase in their vote (eg here) though opponents disagree (eg here.) We should have a clearer picture later in the week. Valenciano (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Rank by seats

I propose a rank per seats won in the infobox as per discussion ongoing on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Seat_order_or_vote_order_in_an_infobox. My change has been reverted. I will wait for the outcome of the discussion for further edits. Other comments are welcome on the ongoing discussion. Wykx 00:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your change has been reverted as arbitrary and because of trying to use it to make a point in another discussion. Your edit could be considered WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Impru20 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

To provide some context, there is a lengthy ongoing discussion involving User:Impru20, User:Wykx, User:Number_57, myself and others at Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015#RfC:_Infobox (and earlier on that Talk page) about whether to rank parties in the infobox by how many seats they got or how many votes they got. As part of this discussion, I looked at what election article infoboxes did across the EU for comparison: see Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015#Arbitrary_break (and which I also posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums). In doing this, I found that in every country where it makes a difference, seat order is used, with the exception of Spain (the article under discussion) and here. This discussion has now spilled over here.

This article ranks For Latvia from the Heart (7 seats, 6.9%) fifth above Latvian Association of Regions (8 seats, 6.7%). Wykx swapped this to vote order and Impru20 has swapped this back to vote order.

For the reasons given at Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015, I support using vote order here too. This is for two main reasons: first, the point of an election is to elect seats, so ultimately seats matter more than vote share. (I'm not saying vote share is unimportant, just that seats are more important.) Secondly, as demonstrated, most election articles go with seat order. Bondegezou (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Support ranking by seats, which are a far more important metric. Valenciano (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For info we have now an outcome for Talk:Spanish_general_election,_2015#RfC:_Infobox:_Seats_vs._Votes Wykx 21:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)