This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums 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 France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was provided with references by an Unreferenced articles project volunteer on 11 November 2014. If you edit this page, please build on the good work by citing your sources.

This page and others appear to be part of an ongoing edit war involving French and South African parliamentary election pages (possibly others) spurred by the edit activity of the user “Number 57.” These are substantive edits to longstanding pages that often come without clear discussion to reach a consensus. Additionally, this edit war has spilled over out of Wikipedia itself into posts on other social media sites displaying a negative reaction to these edits and an incredulity at our inability to resolve these issues. These posts have garnered thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) of views, and it should go without saying that this tangibly damages our reputation among the broader public.

With all that being said, I've reverted this page to the regular election template, which had been used for several years before this edit war began. Listed below are the arguments in favor of this template over the election template. Hopefully this will clear up any confusion regarding appropriate templates.

1. It is more informative. The regular election template provides pictures of party leaders, popular vote totals, percentage swing and more information that is cut out of the legislative template.

2. It is less redundant. The main argument I've seen in favor of the legislative template is that it provides a clearer picture of a multi-party parliamentary election by displaying every party to win a seat. However, the results box further down the article already does this, and provides all the information the legislative template provides. Meanwhile, the main infobox should provide more important information, displayed more clearly, such as the most important parties (up to six) and the more extensive information available to be shown under the template.

3. It just looks better. This should go without saying. The regular template provides pictures of leaders and wider columns displaying party information that the legislative template does not. This is generally a format the average Wikipedia user has become accustomed to. PequodOnStationAtLZ ( talk) 14:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply