Talk:2019 Indonesian general election

Should this be split?

Aside from the election being held in the same day, the two elections are separate enough from each other and it can lead to a mess especially for the infobox. Juxlos (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Juxlos: Agree that it should be split. Candidates, polls, results, infobox, all have to be split because they're talking about different elections. I don't think we should combine the article just because they happen on the same day. HaEr48 (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the presidential and legislative election pages - should this page be kept or turned into a redirect? Juxlos (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe just leave a disambiguation page? HaEr48 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Good enough. It's probably a good idea to copy some of the prose here for the other two articles. Juxlos (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This article should not be split unless it exceeds the maximum recommended size. For most countries there is a single article for elections like this. See e.g. Brazilian general election, 2018, Paraguayan general election, 2018, Sierra Leonean general election, 2018, Zimbabwean general election, 2018, Chilean general election, 2017, Kenyan general election, 2017, Liberian general election, 2017 etc etc.Number 57 13:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

And on the opposite end we have the individual districts of the UK, US, and Malaysia. I'm fairly certain with the polls that the legislative and presidential would individually be able to make their own articles. Juxlos (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The UK and Malaysia don't have combined presidential and parliamentary elections... Number 57 06:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Point being, each election individually has their own backgrounds and are sufficiently distinct despite being held on the same day. Just because other articles can't be long enough doesn't mean this wouldn't be - hell, the candidates aren't even in yet and I'd say we have enough prose to split. Juxlos (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm with User talk:Number 57 on this one. If the articles were split, because the political party aspect, legal basis and campaign schedule are identical for both, there would be a lot of duplication. In any case, once the results are in, presumably all the non-longer-relevant opinion poll stuff could be removed to stop the article becoming too long. Also voters are not only choosing the president and the People's Representative Council, but also the non-partisan Regional Representative Council - surely three articles would be overkill? Davidelit (Talk) 12:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this article should look like United States elections, 2016 (there are also many election happen in the same day, not just presidential election), not splitted but summaried many article. This also means that there should be new article about presidential and parliament election maybe. Hddty. (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As demonstrated above, it's more common to keep it in a single article. Plus the American election articles are huge so need to be split. I have no objection to splitting this one when it's reached the maximum recommended size, but until then I see no point in having two shorter articles on what is effectively a single national election. Number 57 20:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection. Why do we need to combine two different things? The parliamentary and the presidential elections have different candidates, different poll, different winners, different results, different rules, different legal basis, and so on... Probably only the schedule would be the same. The examples above are kind of cherrypick and mostly consist of small countries with little media coverage. There are many counter examples:

• United States presidential election, 2016 vs United States Senate elections, 2016 vs United States House of Representatives elections, 2016
• Turkish presidential election, 2018 vs Turkish parliamentary election, 2018
• French presidential election, 2017 vs French legislative election, 2017
• Iranian presidential election, 2017 vs Iranian local elections, 2017
• Philippine presidential election, 2016 vs Philippine Senate election, 2016 vs Philippine Senate election, 2016

Indonesia is a large country and both presidential and parliamentary elections are important on their own, I'd say it's much more appropriate to split rather than have one article with every section having two independent subsections. HaEr48 (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with @HaEr48: above, though the fact that Brazil of all countries is in the "merged" list is interesting. Seriously, someone in E&R should expand and split it - makes no sense for the fourth largest (or something) electorate in the world to be a single article. Regardless, this article probably won't be split until the candidates are registered in about a month or so. Juxlos (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I should emphasise that I said it was more common, not that it wasn't done elsewhere (and there are many more examples I could have listed). And two of those examples are not relevant to this discussion (the French elections were not on the same day and the Iranian ones are a mix of local and national). I will give Mexico and Nigeria as examples of other large countries that have single articles. I don't see that there is any "sense" in having a split article – it's a matter of opinion over whether the reader should have to look at one or two articles to see the information on what is practically a single national event. Number 57 10:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If a lot of examples for both types exist, then there's not really a strict precedent for one side, right? So we just use whichever makes sense. Your example, Mexican general election, 2018 shows why combining is a bad idea. The lead and the infobox talks only about the presidential election. You need to scroll down really far to find the result of the parliamentary election. Compare to United States Senate elections, 2016 where the result and the contestants are neatly summarized in the infobox and the lead. As for '"sense" in having a split article', this is your opinion, and as can be seen from the discussion above, not all editors agree. FWIW, I'm inclined to go with Juxlos' judgement on this topic, given that he edited a lot of Indonesian election-related articles recently. HaEr48 (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there are a lot of examples of split articles – it is done in some cases, but not that many. Also not sure why you felt the need to reiterte the point I made about "sense" being an opinion (I put it quote marks as I was referencing Juxlos' mention of it), unless you're trying to suggest that that wasn't the point I was making?

As for agreeing with Juxlos on the basis that he has edited a lot of Indonesian election articles, you're ignoring the fact that Davidelit and myself created over half of the articles on Indonesian national elections. I suspect you're inclined to go with his judgement solely because you agree with him. Number 57 11:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there should be at least four articles: election about president, DPR, DPD, and this article that is not a disambiguation but summary of the three before. --Hddty. (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinkig the way I did Indonesian local elections, 2018 - short summary for this page for each, but put significantly higher details for the individual pages. The presidential election article, for example, can contain some details about their campaigning, debates, and the manuvers that happen prior to the election (e.g. how Muhaimin Iskandar really pushes to be Jokowi's VP candidate, or how the parties shift their supports). The legislative (DPR) election can have some details on how elections actually work beyond just "oh yeah PDI-P gets 150 seats and 20% of the votes" with a longer listing per electoral district - bit long but manageable. Same goes for DPD, and DPRD-per-province is still notable by Wikipedia guidelines. Splitting it will allow editors to provide notabledetails and information beyond the 2004, 2009 and 2014 articles and closer to articles on elections in the US, UK, India or even Malaysia Juxlos (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To somewhat revive this discussion it seems like the two tickets have been set in stone (WP:CRYSTAL I know but still). Since it seems to lack consensus I'm going WP:IAR and pushing a draft (or two) into mainspace after the announcement is made. Juxlos (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As there's no consensus to split the article, please don't do it. If these articles appear, I'll be merging them back here based on this discussion. Number 57 09:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

After seeing {{2016 Philippine elections}} I see no reason not to. I'm doing it anyway though it won't be in a couple months after the articles are developed, mind. I have standards and you won't be seeing something like the british town council stuff. Juxlos (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Doing your own thing after not getting your way in a talk page discussion is not a good approach and it's a shame to see this happening. Number 57 09:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, neither "no split" nor "split" comes out. Forgive me for assessing based on notability instead of a couple editors' opinions. Juxlos (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Also on a slightly off topic what's the term for if you go {{main}} instead of turning this into a disambiguation. Juxlos (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: @Hddty.: @HaEr48: Alright, it's been a couple months. I've been developing the articles separately in draftspace - see Draft:Indonesian legislative election, 2019 and Draft:Indonesian presidential election, 2019. Do you think these are long enough to separate, or should I just merge the contents here first and see? Juxlos (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

At this stage I would still say no, based on the amount of prose in each article. The two drafts are too table-heavy and this should be converted to text wherever possible (with the exception of the opinion polling), which potentially would reduce them in size quite a bit (there was a similar discussion on splitting the Brazil general election article, which was resolved by removing some not-particularly-useful tables and replacing them with a few sentences of text. Number 57 15:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, though FWIW, the presidential election draft has about 9.7k 14k characters prose (excluding timeline and polling), while the Brazilian general election, 2018 article one has 7.1k. I might extend the presidential election one some more, and then maybe expect a doubling by the time the results go out. Juxlos (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, are there any objections to me moving the contents here for now and see if it should be split later? Juxlos (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Threshold

This discussion is not about this article but about the Indonesian election as a whole since this article is frequently watched by active editor. So in the Indonesian election if you want to nominate president/governor/mayor/regent often you have to form a coalition with other party because of "threshold"; a candidate could be nominated by one party/coalition of parties if that party/coalition of parties has at least 20% seat in parliament or at least 25% vote in the latest election. For example in Indonesian presidential election, 2014 Joko Widodo nominated by PDIP, PKB, NasDem, Hanura, and PKPI while Prabowo nominated by Gerindra, PAN, PPP, PKS, PBB, Golkar. So my proposal is 1) put all the party that nominate the candidate and 2) do not put party color in infobox unless threshold is abolished. Thank you. --Hddty. (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

They are often a gigantic pain in the ass (like in the local election articles) but Jokowi being PDI-P and Prabowo being Gerindra are pretty well-established. Alternatively, we can write the coalition in the infobox? Juxlos (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Juxlos: Majority of the country doesn't have threshold. If you think that there are many list, "Staring" parameter in Template:Infobox film often has more than ten lists. PDIP and Gerindra alone at the 2014 election cannot nominate their own president. The coalition itself written in "alliance" parameter. For example in West Java gubernatorial election, 2018 Sudrajat-Syaikhu are really famous for being nominated by Gerindra-PKS-PAN yet in Wikipedia their party is only PKS. --Hddty. (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hddty.: I edited it slightly - closer to target? Juxlos (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Juxlos: That's good. I think the word "coalition" isn't needed because readers would know it anyway. We didn't need party color in infobox (whether the candidate nominated by party/coalition of parties, so it would be consistent) until the threshold is abolished. Also put the party that has the largest votes in previous election first in the list and so on. Hddty. (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hddty.: Cool - if you would, might be great to standardize the stuff in the whole series and some more in the past. Juxlos (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Usually if a candidate is from one party, but is backed as part of a coalition, their own party will be listed in the party field, and the alliance in the alliance field. I've modified the 2014 article as an example. Number 57 20:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: What's important here is not the candidate's party, but what party nominate them. Anyone from any party/independent could be a candidate as long as they are supported by party/coalition of party. Because of coalition, their running mate often different from president, for example Jusuf Kalla is Golkar, Hatta Rajasa is PAN, Boediono from 2009 election is independent. The alliance name is not important because the party didn't required to name their coalition, therefore the name is unnoficial (also no one say the 2014 coalition is "majority" and "minority". I think Template:Infobox election very suitable for US presidential election because 1) President and Vice President are from the same party 2) only have one round 3) candidates only nominated by one party. Hddty. (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

With regards to the names being unofficial and never used, I've removed them from the infobox, but you might want to remove them from the table in the political parties section of the article too. Number 57 06:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The term majority/minority in the section is not really wrong in the context that they have majority/minority seats in parliament. Still the coalition name isn't needed because what's important here is the party. Hddty. (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Indonesian regional politics is such a clusterf*ck. Having candidates who are formally member of party A, but is supported by party B, C, and D while fighting party A's candidste isn't uncommon. Juxlos (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine – this can be reflected in the list of parties in each coalition and the party of the candidate. Also, there's no need to ping me – I have this page on my watchlist... Number 57 06:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That works until you meet people like Ridwan Kamil - he's not formally affiliated to any party but he's supported by several. Examples I brought up like Riau gubernatorial election, 2018 - one of the candidates is formally a member of Golkar, but he's running against the Golkar-supported candidate. And then there are the formally-party-members who are formally running independently. Probably easier to leave the color unless they're both clearly a party member and supported by them (like the 2014 pres. election) Juxlos (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In cases like that, you can remove the colour with party_colour = no. Number 57 11:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No mention for the running mate's party in infobox? Hddty. (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no parameter for it. However, you could put it after/under their name in brackets. Number 57 12:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I still consistent with the proposal no. 2 that the party color isn't needed in infobox. In Indonesian election the candidate and their running mate could be from different party. The color in infobox is suitable for country like US where the pair are from the same party or for country like France and Russia where the party only nominated one person. Hddty. (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said, if it's an issue, you can remove the colours by adding the parameter party_colour = no. Number 57 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polls

The section "Opinion polls" is too much and really against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Should it be removed or summaried? Hddty. (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In what way is it too much or indiscriminate? I can't see how it's different to the usual opinion polling included in election articles. Number 57 12:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe No. 3 of "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics"? Hddty. (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if it's collapsible it won't seem as much. Juxlos (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need collapsing. Having opinion polling lists like this is standard for election articles (see, for example, Next Maltese general election or Next Serbian parliamentary election). If the list is too long, it can be separated off into a separate article Opinion polling for the Indonesian general election, 2019. Number 57 15:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Or as the back-and-forth yelling from a bit earlier, into two but I guess that works too. Since the candidates aren't even registered yet I expect it to double at the very least by the time the votes are actually cast. Juxlos (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Collapse list?

should the party names in the alliance (infobox) be collapsed? Juxlos (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Number 57 15:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Expansion

As nobody said "no", I decided to go ahead and shove the two drafts in here for now. Juxlos (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• JokowiAmin.png
• PrabowoSandiLogo.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ma'ruf Amin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ma'ruf Amin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Change template

I think {{Infobox legislative election}} is better to use in this article, see example at 2019 Israeli legislative election. Hddty. (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems like the normal election template is more commonly used - see 2019 Spanish general election, 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2019 Indian general election, etc. Juxlos (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

That's because {{Infobox legislative election}} is new, the current template can only fit nine parties. The current template is best for country with few parties. Hddty. (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone have opinion?

In the infobox for the legislative parties, there are only 9 parties in the infobox, while there is 16 parties (excluding 4 local parties). Should we add all of them?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

IMO all parties that won seats should be included. However, {{Infobox election}} only allows up to nine parties. The solution is to use {{Infobox legislative election}}, which can handle up to 20 and is a more succinct summary. See e.g. 2017 Dutch general election for how it looks. Number 57 10:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A bit of crystal balling here - but coincidentally, it looks like 9 parties are set to win seats. I think it's fine to just include them for the infobox and maybe have a data page/table for other parties, especially for DPRD seats. Juxlos (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, as it's now possible to combine {{Infobox election}} and {{Infobox legislative election}} into one, I've tried that here and I think it's a much better summary (as you can see all the legislative results on a single screen). Number 57 14:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Split the article?

To cope standards with all of Indonesia's article, should we split the article? Most of Wikipedias split the article, and no other election articles relating to Indonesia combined both elections.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We did have a discussion on this a while ago - but it was a year ago when the article was like 1/4 its current size. I would agree with this. Juxlos (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Capres nomor urut 01 2019 - 2024 Joko Widodo dan Ma'ruf Amin.jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 2019 Indonesian elections protest.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

World record?

This appears to be the election in which a person received more votes for president in the history of the world. Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

File:JokowiAmin01.png issue

File:JokowiAmin01.png has been previously deleted by bot (See 2019 Indonesian general election: Revision history on 27 August 2023) . Can someone please fix this issue? EdhyRa (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a non-free image and is only allowed to be used on one article – Joko Widodo 2019 presidential campaign. Number 57 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? And how to make it can be used in this article? (Sorry, I'm not "image guy" so I don't quite grasp it).

Or maybe don't use images at all (same for Prabowo) in this article if the issue is not solvable. EdhyRa (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

After I read Wikipedia:NFC on WP:NFC#Implementation section related to this issue, it said this:

“

A non-free rationale

The rationale to use the non-free content is necessary to show that the non-free content criteria have been met. The rationale should clearly address and satisfy all ten points of WP:NFCC. Template versions to generate such rationales do exist, and include:

• {{Non-free use rationale}} – A generic template applicable for any non-free media.
• {{Non-free use rationale 2}} – An alternative template to the above.
• {{Non-free use rationale logo}} – A rationale template for logos, assuming they are being used as a header image (standalone or infobox) for the entity the logo represents.

Several other boilerplate rationale templates can be found at Category:Non-free use rationale templates, but editors are cautioned that these are generally tenuous in terms of supporting WP:NFCC#8, and are encouraged to improve upon rationales if they can do so. You are not required to use the template forms, but whatever form you chose needs to clearly address all ten criteria in WP:NFCCP.

It is important to remember that a non-free rationale is needed for each use of the image on Wikipedia. If the image is used in two separate articles, two separate rationales are needed, unique for both articles. If the image is used more than once in the same article, a separate and specific rationale is still needed for each use.

Both the license and the rationale need to be included on the non-free media description page. The standard upload tool for Wikipedia will ask you enough questions during the process to fill in both the license and rationale for you, thus simplifying the process. If they are added manually, with or without the help of a template, it is recommended to put the rationale and license under separate sections "Rationale" and "Licensing" respectively.

Failure to include a licensing template, or a rationale that clearly identifies each article the media file is used in, will lead to the media file being deleted within 7 days after being tagged with warning messages.

”

In other words, you need filled the description or something (Idk where and how) for non-free use. Hope this help. EdhyRa (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)