Talk:2024 South African general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox[edit]

Number 57 Here we can start a discussion rather than reverts back and forth. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, always happy to discuss when people follow WP:BRD. The splitting of the infobox is simply unnecessary IMO. Please could you stop forcing it back in? Cheers, Number 57 08:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Multi-Party Charter should be shown somehow/somewhat in the infobox. The way I did it I think is best (especially since its been done in other pages like the 2022 Italian general election), but if you have any other ideas/suggestions. I'm open to hear it. But leaving it how it is now I think doesn't suffice. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs showing in the infobox. The Italian example is different because the alliances actually ran as a single unit in the FPTP element of the elections. Cheers, Number 57 08:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Independence edits[edit]

Cape Independence is not even relevant to this page considering the absence of other special sections regarding the other political parties. Considering there are more relevant parties too than Cape Independence, it doesn't belong here and it's obviously being posted for propaganda reasons. 165.73.64.6 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of the relevance for other reasons, but the reason you state here and the edit summary for your last edits are not good reasons for the removal of sourced information. The fact that other information is not present is not a sufficient reason to remove something else. Beach drifter (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, look at the content of the entire article and tell me that belongs there. This isn't about the Western cape, nor is it a relevant movement. You can look by simply seeing any traction they have too. 165.73.64.6 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters in that it is sourced content and you left an edit summary that does not describe sound reasoning for its removal. It does not help your case that you are making near identical edits elsewhere. Your post here is more on track, articulate your reasoning as to why this information is not relevant to the article, do not edit war! Beach drifter (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant of what I done elsewhere. This page is about general elections and anything that is deemed relevant. Tell me with a straight face that it warrants it's space when there's far more relevant ones and no other in it's place. It's simply propaganda. 165.73.64.6 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating the same argument about the lack of other info. Just add that other info.
On the issue of it being "propaganda", this is a repeat of the issue with some of your edit summaries where you accused another editor of "using this page to push your agenda". Please do not do that. Editors on Wikipedia are required to assume in almost all cases that everyone else is operating in good faith. Another editor probably just has a different view to you on what is and isn't an interesting topic for the article. Most people just want to improve the encyclopaedia. Few things are propaganda campaigns. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article as it stands is indeed a bit on the short side. Hopefully it can be filled out a bit. But the section on cape independence strikes me as perfectly fine; it's sourced, and is in connection to topics and parties which are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. To me that plainly means it is relevant.
If you are concerned that there are other issues which are more relevant than it, I am not going to disagree with you. You're probably right. But the solution to that is simply to expand the page; other things being more notable doesn't make this not notable. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not make that judgement call. If you wish for someone significant to come and sort this out then so be it. 165.73.64.6 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@165.73.64.6 I do not get to make that call. I didn't say I did. We are having a discussion and I am adding my opinion to that discussion. Wikipedia works by consensus. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is heavy bias in this article towards the national ballot, at the expense of the nine provincial ballots. By your logic all of the content relating to the national ballot should also be removed because there is hardly any mention or any special sections about the nine provincial ballots. The simple thing is that this article is very sparse compared to what content can reasonably by included here, and all wikipedians who are interested in expanding the article should do so responsibly. That means adding relevant and well sourced sections. The section on Cape independence is definitely relevant to the topic of the article, and it is adequately referenced. If you have any additions to make that would help remove the bias of this article, feel free to do so, making use of relevant and adequate sources. Janneman27 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Janneman27 as this involves them. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cape Independence is a movement, not a single political party, that could affect the results for the Western Cape provincial legislature. General elections are used to determine national and provincial legislatures. So the issue seems to relevant for the coming general election. Look, like others said, if you want to add more electiom issues that are relevant to a general election, go ahead. But the movement is legitimate, the sources are legitimate, and it is a legitimate issue for the 2024 general election. Janneman27 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so I have just added an entire paragraph that should make it more clear how this is a relevant section on this page. It should provide clear evidence that this is not some fringe fantasy, but a serious local issue.
Before anybody goes and deletes anything, can we please have a civil discussion here and come to a consensus before anybody goes crazy.
And if anybody has any other Issues they would like to add to the page, feel free to do so as long as you do so responsibly.
Janneman27 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with the hostile nature of the edits, Jannerman, you are leveraging a highly significant page a head of this year's elections and upon reading it, I think it needs to be a lot more adequate in how it's represented. They are correct of how Cape Independence is represented, so I suggest you cut down a lot on the paragraph and keep it more brief so that it is in line with how significant it is publicly to avoid any confusion. A quick change right now would be to move it at the bottom of the "Issues" title or better, make a "Political movements" section and add more than just Cape Independence as this is a country wide election. 105.245.162.213 (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusin General election and National election. Read the previous comments. Provincial parliaments are being elected during the coming General election. This is an issue that relates directly to the election of the Western Cape parliament, which is happening at the 2024 general election. When the section was added, it was at the bottom, but other sections were added subsequently. Currently there is not enough content on issues of provincial prominence to make a complete subsection for it, but over time, as people add more relevant information, that would definitely make sense. I don't think shortening the section much is possible. It already paints a fairly concise picture of the movement. But I will see what I can do. Maybe try to expand other sections to make them more reflective of reality. Janneman27 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is about confusing about what election it is. I assume their point being made is simply about being more represetitive of the country and not local politics. I'm sorry but I yet to see any significant news coverage on this that warrants such a significant section on this page and asking for "proof" is just counter intuitive, of course there's no proof as there's little information other than a select few media sites that aren't even mainstream.
The issue that is paramount is concerning how important this election is and it is our duty to be ethical and not misrepresent details. This page is going to be highly trafficked and you run a risk of inflating a lot of it. I would also argue that you have a bias to keep it lengthy due to the edits you have contributed and it is fair to assume that you are an Independence supporter. I would like someone else who is influential to actually put a hand on this to keep this kind of stuff in check considering how sensitive this election is. Also pushing others to "add more" tells me you don't really care about the sensitivity of it. Do your duty to not warp this. Danivalkyrie (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of accusations. I am editing in good faith. I understand your concerns for ethics, but this is an encyclopedia that also has rules and guidelines. The section does, as far as I know and has been discussed at length above, conform to all of these guidelines. By all means, have an impartial third party verify this, but this exact thing has already been done twice. Media coverage is not the only qualifier for content relevance. Have a look at the main Cape independence article for more clarification and additional sources. But from what is shown in the source material, it is a significant (read relevant, not large) issue in the Western Cape and by extension an issue that would affect the General election. Not agreeing with content is not the same as having a right to remove content. Several users have been griefing this page, in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines, and I am seeing to it that that does not happen again. If you have contributions to make to the page, feel free, but do so responsibly and according to Wikipedia guidelines. Janneman27 (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which details are being misrepresented how, and what is your source for this misrepresentation? Is that argument maybe not already made on the Cape independence page and properly sourced there? Does it make sense to repeat such arguments on this page when a prominent link is already given to the [Cape independence]] page where the discussion can be more thorough? Please do due diligence before proposing something. This is not a platform for individual opinions and bias, but democratic consensus. Janneman27 (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about individual opinions. It's simply about presenting the facts correctly if you do not understand that I don't feel that talking to you directly will have you understand that. Also considering there was already an edit war over this I find that this topic has already proven itself to be a sensitive topic and that we should bring upon a 3rd party. @AntiDionysius if you could chime in on this please. Danivalkyrie (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three separate third parties have already had no issue with the section, including @AntiDionysius, but feel free to get as many opinions in as you want. Janneman27 (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three seperate parties have vetted an edit war, not so much the context content of what you posted. I'd like to see that happen. The point I'm trying to make here is a simple one, I too can add anything to this page if I feel like it's relevant to the elections, at the end of the day it's how you present it that what warps the reality. I agree, there is a need for more information, but as it stands, I believe there needs to be a correction or even some far more heavy scrutiny on the things being added as I have said how sensitive things are for this year's elections. I believe I made myself clear and I'd like more third party input. Danivalkyrie (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to make the edits that you feel are necessary. But be aware of the Wikipedia guidelines and please use proper referencing. Simple. If your edit is good and acceptable, by consensus, then it will form part of the article. Janneman27 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misunderstand, this isn't about just adding whatever I want without reference. It's the action of adding information and appropriately representing it. I'm not suggesting that the information you've added is incorrect or fake. I believe there's a duty to be made on how you presented it. You have shown to not understand or wish to discuss that on the terms of requiring more information to be added and I believe you're just doing that to kick the bag to someone else to not do your own due diligence. Danivalkyrie (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are now purposefully misrepresenting me. Do you know what due diligence is? Look at my reply below, and please answer my questions. What about the section is presented worngly and how? Please answer so that I can fix it. Or fix it yourself. But please be specific. Janneman27 (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been specified on what changes can be made, I think one of the anonymous posters said. I agree with them but I also think there should be more scrutiny to new additions, I'm not sure if that's possible. Danivalkyrie (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That user was blocked for edit warring and griefing. If you want to contribute constructively in the discussion, please see my reply below this one and answer the questions directly. If there are any obvious changes to be made, feel free to make them or to let me know what they are so that I can make those changes. Janneman27 (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified Danivalkyrie (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified what? All the points you have made have been addressed. If you are being obtuse on purpose, I can't help you. Janneman27 (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was regarding shortening your additions and/or moving it to a new section that more adequately fits. Danivalkyrie (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shortening it any further would remove context. The facts are being presented as concisely as I can write it, in a neutral tone, and directly from the referenced sources. How can it be made shorter?
It is already in a section relating to election issues. Is this not an election issue? What section would you recommend it be moved to? Janneman27 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about "the facts" is not being represented "correctly". The section is written in a neutral manner, gets it content directly from the sources/references, and presents a concise summary with a prominent link to a more thorough discussion. As per the Wikipedia guidelines. Janneman27 (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of expansion required[edit]

This article requires a lot of expansion still. Currently the focus is overwhelmingly on the National Assembly, whereas for a general election the National Assembly as well as all nine provincial parliaments are elected. The article needs lots more info on provincial election matters. I can only add some of the relevant info, but will not have the time for adding much any time soon. As always, I will assist in fixing minor typos and rewriting sentences where necessary, as well as checking for reference quality. Please help by adding provincial content where you can. Thanks in advance. Janneman27 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry with provincial content as much. Convention is that each province has a corresponding page on their respective election, for example, 2019 Western Cape provincial election. Topics of national interest include immigration and healthcare (the possible introduction of the National Health Insurance). Looking at the 2019 South African general election, I'm sure most if not all of those issues can be replicated - and then updated with new information. GoldStingray920 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It might be worthwhile creating those pages then, and possibly renaming this page to "2024 South African national election", although that is not what it is officially called. Another option would be to keep this page as is, add short sections about the provincial elections and then link these to the respective pages. Any other ideas? Janneman27 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, looking at the 2019 South African general election and the prior pages as well, it seems that the consensus has been to cover both national and provincial electoral matters on the main page, and reserve a more detailed provincial overview on the provincial pages. So it would seem to make sense to keep this page name as is and add all relevant (i.e. relating to national and/or provincial elections) information here, as has been the consensus on all previous pages relating to the general election. If only then in summary where it makes sense, with links to the provincial pages for more detail. Issues on all these pages notwithstanding, naturally. It would also make sense to see how this page is prioritised with the various Wikiprojects. I will see if I can have priority escalated on a few related project groups so that we can get a whole bunch of volunteers to contribute and increase the quality of this page and the related pages a bit. Many of the pages relating to the elections seem to leave a lot to be desired, and could do with a bit of deep cleaning and maintenance. I will see what I can do over the next week or two to get the ball solidly rolling on this. Janneman27 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Cyril Ramaphosa's foreign interference election claim.[edit]

Can I ask that a note be added to Ramaphosa's claim that there may be foreign interference in South Africa's elections. It is just a claim. Until he can provide solid evidence for it, a note should be added. It isn't lost on me that this is exactly what the Zimbabwean president did before that country's election, to whip up nationalism and partisan support for their own political parties, portraying opposition parties as possible unpatriotic plotters of Western intelligence agencies. GoldStingray920 (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence already makes it clear that it is just a statement from a person. Nowhere is it labeled as an established fact. Janneman27 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls[edit]

The entry for IPSOS, Oct 2023 (the one with the ANC at 50%) does not represent the source article very well, for a number of reasons:

  • This one was an Inclusive Society Institute analysis of IPSOS data, but it's only marked IPSOS. The previous such entry on the table states "IPSOS & Inclusive Society Institute"
  • The fieldwork date is not mentioned anywhere in the news article that is the source. And the original polling report does not appear to be publicly available. It seems that Oct 2023 must be an assumption.
  • The source article shows several sets of data:
    • Party choice among eligible voters, with high, medium and low turnout scenarios.
    • Party choice among registered voters, with the dataset that includes non-voters, refusals and undecideds, as well as the reworked data to exclude non-voters and allocate undecideds.
  • Yet the data presented in the table is the polling of all eligible voters, in the high turnout scenario. With 26.2m voters registered before the first registration weekend in Nov [1] and 27.7m registered voters being the final outcome when the voters roll closed [2], the increase in registered voters was less than 6% between the likely fieldwork date and the proclaimed election date. The final number of registered voters reportedly represents 66.9% of the voting age population. [3] A high turnout of eligible voters would seem to be off the table.

I therefore suggest that the best results set from the ISI-IPSOS survey to include in the table of opinion polls, is the reworked result of party choice among registered voters. The second-best results set would probably be party choice among eligible voters in the medium turnout scenario. The choice which will be made on which set of results to report in the article is significant, as this poll represents the largest outlier in the polling trend over time. Gk sa (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above also prompted me to look at the other poll by ISI listed, the one for Apr 2023. Things get even stranger here. It does not seem to have been widely reported in the media. The original poll report is again not publicly available. The cited source, a news article on EWN, has been removed. I found an archived copy on the Wayback Machine[4]. And it turns out that the results listed in the table has been taken from the medium turnout scenario of the poll result, but the results reported here has been adjusted: the DA's support has been increased by exactly 10%, and the support for "Other" has been decreased by exactly 10% by ip 105.29.73.98 on 23 Oct 2023.
It seems that this action can only have been deliberate, because it was done over the course of three edits, with the last step being to balance the lead differential in the last column to reflect the new fabricated results. Suggest that this either be corrected, or the opinion poll not being listed at all (since the apparent media blackout and unavailability of original source material casts some doubt on the veracity of this outlier). Either way, "making the data fit" is not the proper solution. Gk sa (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Injustice and Justice in African History[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nreeb (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hyaak.

— Assignment last updated by Hyaak (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling - party lead[edit]

Hi, all. The table of opinion polls incorrectly had the "lead" column indicating the ANCs lead in percentages instead of percentage points. I have corrected this, but assume some won't understand the difference or think that "pts" looks funny. But I can assure you that the leads should not be indicated in percentages (unless you actually want to calculate the actual/correct percentages), but rather in percentage points. I would agree that "pts" is maybe a weird abbreviation, but please feel free to change that to the correct abbreviation if you wish. Janneman27 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lock article[edit]

The 2024 is a highly contested elections. Can we lock the page until after the elections to limit page vandalism and misinformation. EuKoketsolion (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism has been very scarce and usually quickly dealt with. The election is still evolving and locking it now would be a bit premature. Janneman27 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A request to Admins to lock the page will be made just prior to election day and for week. My experience from the last municipal and national election, was like trying to stop the "Zombies at the door with a club". All our hard work was being undone by the minute. Conlinp (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. EuKoketsolion (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Tripartite Alliance the Same as the MPC?[edit]

Neither the SACP (South African Communist Party) nor COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) field candidates in elections. However, some of their members hold seats in Parliament and even Cabinet positions. Interestingly, the SACP is a registered political party and has even contested a by-election in the past. This raises the question of how the the Tripartite Alliance differs from the Multi-Party Charter, which is a political alliance . EuKoketsolion (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map Beef[edit]

Y'all, Matthew McMullin & 沁水湾 figure out your differences here not in edits. Thanks. Also, since I simply must give my two cents on this, I personally use the circles because they're aesthetic, even though I recognize issues of readability. They work in small quantities and cease to serve any functional use after a certain point. However, I also think the bar charts have limitations as well. They are, in my opinion, a bit clunky. This is why I prefer to use pie charts for things like this, but they too fail to meet the function we all desire. Talleyrand6 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your invite :)
There’s always a tradeoff. I’ve already stated my issue with filling in circles when the district magnitude is large. I’ll not repeat them here.
Regarding pie charts, we should steer clear of them in most cases. While it’s true they are more compact and display relative sizes as percentages between a small # of categories somewhat well, data visualization should prioritize intuitiveness over aesthetics. Pie charts have garnered its infamous reputation for good reasons. Long story short, our brains aren’t very good at differentiating the sizes of pies (as oppose to say heights of bars).
Here’s an article on why you should almost never use a pie chart. I’m going to make a convert out of you two:): https://theconversation.com/heres-why-you-should-almost-never-use-a-pie-chart-for-your-data-214576 沁水湾 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two map types (2019 vs 2024), I prefer the 2019 one. Having a legend taking up a third of the width of the map isn't a great use of space.
Also, yet another reminder to fellow editors that it's not cool to complain about/link to a dispute you are having on Wikipedia from your social media accounts, which is effectively WP:CANVASSING. This seems to have become a recurring issue for E&R articles in the last year and at some point it's going to end up at WP:ANI. Number 57 23:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the 2019 legend takes up the exact same 3rd width of the image, what are you trying to get at? Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, comparing them exactly the 2019 one takes up MORE space (about a 1/3) compared to the 2024 one (about a 1/4) Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is it's a third of the width – moving it to the bottom (like the 2019 election) would allow the map to be the full width of the infobox. Number 57 23:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're mistaken, the 2019 infobox is on the right hand side of the image & as you can see it takes up 1/3 of the width. the individual party voter strengths are what is on the bottom. something I took out of my 2024 map because I believe things such as that to be no more than clutter. Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I can make this clearer: In the 2019 image the legend is fitted into the map in a way in which doesn't reduce the width of the country outline and the seat bloc is shown underneath (again not affecting the width of the country outline), whereas in the 2024 one the legend and seat bloc are not fitted in and take up the left-most third of the image, reducing the width of the country outline. Number 57 00:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I can make myself clearer: if you look for yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_South_African_general_election you will see the infobox is on the RIGHT. if I cannot make you see that which is on the wikipedia page itself then I am powerless, such furthur endeavours or communications would only result in the repeat of previous interactions & experiences I have had with yourself, best of luck to you and good day. Matthew McMullin (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. Is it possible for you to upload your map under a slightly different name (such as “South African general election, 2024”)? All of my previous maps were uploaded under the “insert year South African general election” format. I want to keep it a set. Thanks for your generous considering. 沁水湾 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why what side of the page the infobox is on is relevant, but here's a screenshot to demonstrate my point about the relative width of the map images from the two articles – as I hope can be seen, the 2019 map is significantly wider (and taller) than the 2024 one because it isn't being squeezed by the legend/seat bloc. Number 57 00:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. This is exactly why I downsized the legends, moved the nation-wide lists seats to bottom, and removed the top-8 party-vote strength maps from the main one. A bonus of doing this is the map width/length ratio remains 1:1. 沁水湾 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of space, I usually make my map templates to include all the parties that could win a seat or area, even if they don't. Usually, it's an educated guess based on polling & previous results. I also only give a vote share gradient to parties or coalitions winning a geographic area. I would also say, in the context of this year's SA election, since there's a coalition, Matthew's organization is bloated. The multi-party charter led by DA should have one gradient for the geographic areas, and the coalition parties should only have the bars showing names, votes, and seats. I know this is no place to self-insert, but for the French Legislative elections, I keep the coalitions within one bar and distinguish the individual parties within. Something like that could work here, too. For example, you can show the individual parties winning individual seats on the particular province and national lists, but you needn't do that in the legend area.
I agree with Number 57 here that the geographic areas are the most important and should have prominence over the party legend and seat illustrations. I also agree with 沁水湾 on the need for compactness. A good map doesn't need all the bells and whistles we would typically like to attach. For instance, her Japanese maps are a prime example. Compact and detailed. I don't want to show any partiality towards anyone here; these are just my private opinions. I, of course, celebrate newer map-makers testing their hand at making new maps and developing their styles. Still, in a place like Wikipedia, specific unspoken guidelines developed by the mass of mappers are generally a wise place to start. Accuracy, detail, and compactness are all important, but you needn't sacrifice one for another. Matt's maps are lovely, but they often stray into the territory of extra detail. Again, that's wonderful. I commend him. It's just a wee bit too much for an infobox map. Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
obviously I won't have *every* bar showing when the final election results are done, I've just made every one of them now as a "better safe than sorry" situation because it's easier for me to remove bars than it is to add them back in Matthew McMullin (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue for me isn't the width of the bars, it's the location. If they were placed under the map rather than to the side, the map could be made full width of the image (like the 2019 one), which I think would be easier for readers to digest. Number 57 20:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just uploaded a new version of the map with the change you requested, please tell me how it looks now Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks! My only comments is that if there was any chance the legend could be fitted a bit more tightly with the western border of Northern Cape (so the map could be almost totally full width), I'd do that. Cheers, Number 57 23:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok how about now? I've made it the full width of the page Matthew McMullin (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" labeling[edit]

Labeling a violent, racist, communist organization like the EFF as "controversial" is a massive understatement.

Pineapple on pizza is "controversial". Julius Malema and his organization are horrible. RemLezar (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_South_African_general_election&oldid=1224082925"