Talk:Stocker government

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Legislative composition bar.

Why was the composition bar removed? I gives useful information regarding legislative status and composition. 2603:6000:BE00:10C1:A12D:5D62:BFFA:5F13 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation was (quite literally) given in full in the edit summary of the edit removing it ([1]), detailing how 1) is it actually not helpful and is, actually, misleading; 2) this is not an article on "legislative status and composition", so the infobox does not have to show "legislative status and composition" (note MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE on how "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. (...) An article should remain complete with its infobox ignored."). Rather, maybe we should question why was it added in the first place, as no consensus for its addition exists and no explanation or reason can be found in the edit that unilaterally added it ([2]). Impru20^talk 10:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to justify every addition. You seem quite antagonistic. EulersNumberIsGreat (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have when you have arguments against it. You just don't add something because "I just like it" because that goes against a number of MOS and even guidelines. Specially when it's fairly obvious that most of the additions come because some people thought this was some form of standardized formatting and just copy-pasted it into other articles, when it wasn't the case. Impru20^talk 13:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't really fit for this situation, and, until you deleted them, there were no arguments against the inclusion of the bar. This is hardly the Trump article, do you expect peole to justify edits to the zero people watching this page? Also, if enough articles use this format, eventually it becomes standardised. EulersNumberIsGreat (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And? Probably someone just missed it or did not care about it back then. As you say, there are arguments against the inclusion of the bar now, and no arguments contesting them and/or supporting the bars are being proposed. I am not expecting anything: if there are actual sensible arguments for the inclusion of the bars and consensus determines that these should be re-included, there will no issue on it, but that's clearly not the case now. What's wrong, exactly? Impru20^talk 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a RfC to reach a wide consensus on the topic affecting this thread, so you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Impru20^talk 09:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]