User talk:Number 57

Click here to leave a new message.

Legislative Elections - France

Seems people from Twitter/X are reverting your work. Impru20 has come to me to ask for where the conversation was to agree for the legislative election temp. was made too, for the French leg. elects. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Just because people on social media are indignant about what goes on over here, that doesn't mean their voices should be ignored!!!

Many of those people have an invested interest because what you've built over here happens to be a useful resource for tens of thousands of people. They are about it because they love it and they use it. Some of them even contribute to elections wiki. Talleyrand6 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

They're reverting the work cause the info boxes are objectively a better way of communicating the information Aidanaddsthings (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aidanaddsthings: No so, if elected independents aren't represented. Even if it's just one. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not gonna fight this out in a guy's talk page but this really reeks of missing the forest for the trees Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Put a table then in another part of the article then? Otherwise I concur with my pal @Talleyrand6. Hyraemous (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Ditto with @Talleyrand6 and @Hyraemous. Can't see a reason to not have the candidate's portraits in the first section of the page. Lucksash (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

These changes are clunky. Being immediately given a giant spreadsheet instead of the professionally drawn maps and charts is not intuitive to people wanting to start to learn about these. There is obviously nowhere near consensus to change what has been working well for years now. Sophistry27 (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Maps were not removed, and in most cases became more visible because the alternative infobox form is shorter and readers don't have to scroll down to see it. Number 57 03:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Disappointed to see the infoboxes being changed back, but a big problem of what is now going on is people blindly reverting made up or incorrect election results back into articles. I wish people would actually look at what they are doing when they are hitting the undo button ffs. Number 57 20:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

People are reverting your edits which are omitting important information about voter numbers and turnout, along with other information. You are actively making it harder to find out information about these elections in an easy way. If corrections need to be made, then make them without cutting out important information. Wikipedia is meant to be easily digestible, and your edits make it harder to find the facts Maxine McKeown (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Imma have to agree with this. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with Maxine Zlad! (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree with this Dylan Glasbergen (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57 I understand the frustration with the unsourced results especially, but it does seem like there is little explanation of why such results must be in particular formats. I've asked for clarification on discussions as prior mentioned with @ValenciaThunderbolt and @Impru20, and if you could provide them it would be swell. Especially when there is just a brushing off of such efforts as 'blind reverts' when there are other conflicting reasons it leads people to be more up in arms. Regards, Quinby (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that changing the format of a infobox is different to correcting potentially false information. One can remove potentially false information without massively changing a infobox's look. Hyraemous (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're correcting misinformation on the articles, then that's certainly a good thing - but going ahead with all of these unpopular changes to the infobox formatting alongside the fixes results isn't the way to do it. ItsAstronomical (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

No one hit the undo buttons, they just added the infobox back without touching other stuffs. Anonymousioss (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not true – there are dozens of examples where people have reverted back in nonsense results. Here an editor reverts back in a set of results that are largely made up (vote totals and percentages have been back-calculated from the seat totals). Here an editor reverts back an incomplete and unsourced version of the results table (which doesn't match the sourced found). Number 57 02:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess the question is, why not fix the results in these articles without changing the whole infobox?

I don't have the greatest grasp of Wikipedia orthodoxy/rules, but it seems to be causing more harm than good? Just laying my two cents. CainNKalos (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I thought it was an improvement to change the infobox at the same time I was correcting the result figures. But if someone doesn't like the infobox change, they should revert only that part of it back, without blindly reverting all the other changes. Number 57 03:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Lemme rephrase then.

Why keep changing the infobox to what you prefer when it keeps causing controversy at large and on other websites then? I think I can remember this being the 3rd time at least where I can remember this sorta thing popping up since Nov '23.

It feels like putting your head in the lion's mouth and asking to get it chopped on? I'm not trying to provoke/cause offence, but it just feels a little bit like the definition of insanity. CainNKalos (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"I wish people would actually look at what they are doing when they are hitting the undo button ffs." Peak fucking irony lol. It's a Trap Dang it (talk) It's a Trap Dang it (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

57, what is going on? This is really Twitter-related? Plz let me know if I can help--I have no involvement with these articles. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's only twitter-related insofar as the issue was first noticed there. There has, to my knowledge, been so sort of collective action from there. All of the outrage at Number 57's actions is a wholly warranted reaction. All of the page revisions, however, are wholly organic to Wikipedia users AFIK. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. I see this pop up every few months now, and it's pretty much always Number 57 related.

I think it's really just a clash between how Twitter users like seeing the election articles, and between how Number 57/related Wikipedian's like seeing the articles. (Personally, I think most 'normal' people would prefer articles to be like the former.) CainNKalos (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of us on Wikipedia would also agree with Twitter folks. Also there's a similar issue with him and election maps.

The principle stands though. He does these things without consulting the broader community. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talleyrand6, I wasn't really asking you--and yet I think I answered you already, elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this, one of the reason this idea is so unpopular on Twitter, is because making election wikiboxes is a form of creative expression and interacting with your friends, as trite as that may sound. To have a singular force seem to want to remove this makes that force very, very, VERY unpopular with people who know little of how Wikipedia's systems function. Lucksash (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not very charitable Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)