Talk:1989 South African general election

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Untitled

the labor union solidarity/solidariteit is not the same organisation as the former indian ZA party with this name which participated in these elections! wikilink has to be adjusted.--Severino (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results by electoral division

House of Assembly results by electoral division (parliamentary constituency) as published on the Government Gazette are now included in the article. Note that nationwide vote totals - unchanged since they are identical to those published on the Government Gazette - exclude results from the tied Fauresmith division (subsequently awarded to the National Party), and that the registered voters total also excludes figures from the constituencies of Sandton and Yeoville, where no voting took place since they were won unopposed by the Democratic Party. Manuel Alvarez-Rivera (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changed into list without reason?

The previous Infobox(including images and graphics) has been changed into listing of election results. Excluding the House of delegates, no more than four parties (plus independents) were elected. Four parties (plus independents) can be, in my opinion, shown in an „illustrated“ Infobox without a reader loosing oversight. I do not understand the reason for displaying the election results (except for the house of delegates) in such a list. RandonDjion (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to revisit these election infoboxes. These new ones are absolutely hideous. Carlp941 (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the talk page for the most recent SA elections. There's a reason there. Weigh in if you feel consensus has not been reached. Carlp941 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

full protection 2 days edit warring

This has gotten completely ridiculous. Full protection for two days. Please discuss rather than reverting. Valereee (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on man, what was wrong with my edit? more over is absolutely idiotic that the “default” edit should be that of number 57, as if he wasn’t part of all of this, and especially because no consensus has already been reached so why should be his way the standard? Siglæ (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that protection could be warranted in order to prevent further edit warring, but please Valereee consider that this was the edit that sparked the edit warring here in the ensuing days (just as similar efforts across vast swathes of elections without clear cause have sparked massive edit warring across them). You reverted this back to the actual contentious version. There was no consensus for this edit, which changed a version which had been stable for years (and no, edit summaries are not appropiate for attaining consensus). A full-fledged discussion around this issue is taking place at Talk:2024 South African general election#Infobox legislative election instead of Infobox election. Impru20^talk 20:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree with everything said Siglæ (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]