Talk:2014 Uruguayan general election

Title vs. content

The title says this is about general elections, yet the results are from presidential elections, which were held at the same time. Would it be possible to add the results regarding the parliament, and change the title to "Uruguayan presidential and general election, 2014", OR to add the results regarding the parliament, remove the results regarding the president and start a separate article for the Uruguayan presidential election, 2014? 82.181.8.94 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

General elections refers to both presidential and parliamentary elections being held at the same time, not just to parliamentary elections (this is a British-centric viewpoint). Uruguayan elections are held using a single vote for both the president and the parliament, so we have a single results table for the election. We don't have the number of seats yet, but they will be added to the results table when they have been announced (you can see the columns are blank at the moment). Number 57 10:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Format of results table

Hey @Number 57:
you reverted my changes stating that the new version were "not an improvement". However, IMHO it is indeed an improvement to use the standard template. And it is indeed an improvement to have the table in one place transcluding it in all relevant articles. And it is indeed an improvement that the new version horizontally is more compact, so it fits pages with Infoboxes on the right side. And it is indeed an improvement to show the seats directly beneath the election responsible for the seats and not beneath the presidential runoff which in this regard is irrelevant.
No hard feelings but would you please bring up what exactly you feel is not an improvement about it? THX and regards, --PanchoS (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pancho. What you were using was not the standard template. The wikitable format is by far the most commonly used results table on Wikipedia (I'd estimate it's used at least 80-90% of the time). More importantly, it's what's been used for previous Uruguayan election articles.

The table itself is not great as it combines the candidate and the party into a single cell, when they should be separated out into different columns – this makes the table unnecessarily long. I'm not sure why fitting with the infoboxes is a consideration, as the end of the infobox (and the sidebar) is well above the results section – so there is no need to make it narrower to fit. I can see your point about the order of the columns though, so perhaps we could rearrange the existing table in this format as a compromise? Number 57 12:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey and thanks for your response!
You are right that the decision to put party and candidate in a single cell is a slightly controverse aspect. However, the template is transcluded as well in Senate of Uruguay, President of Uruguay and Chamber of Deputies of Uruguay, where horizontal space is scarce. Vertical space usually isn't a problem and is even less here as it seems more important to see the whole rows at once (for example on mobiles) than all rows without scrolling.
An alternative would be separating the result tables for presidential vs. parliamentary elections as has been done for 2004 and 2009. That might be the foremost decision we should make. I currently think that a single table is preferable but this is debatable.
Thanks again for your cooperative reaction! Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a single table is preferable (the other templates you mention in that category aren't used on election articles though). Perhaps the answer is to use your template on the President, Chamber and Senate pages, and the standard one here – there doesn't have to be consistency between those articles like there does between election ones (if that makes sense). Number 57 14:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)