Talk:2017 Czech parliamentary election

A news item involving 2017 Czech parliamentary election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 October 2017.

Wikipedia

Czech Republic Low‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic 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.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

On 13 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2017 Czech legislative election to 2017 Czech parliamentary election. The result of the discussion was moved.

Date[edit]

I see this has been moved to 2017, but nothing has been added to the article to say it will be held in 2017 (it just says "in or before October 2017", which suggests it could still be held in 2016). @Bedivere.cs: Could you provide some evidence for the election date/year? Cheers, Number 5 7 15:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Sobotka[edit]

Guys, I think both pictures are more or less fine, but why don't you discuss it here for a consensus rather than reverting? Jdcooper (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have written to his talkpage, hope we are gonna solve this. The picture that was in use since 2014 shows Sobotka in neutral position, without mic and opened mouth. I have no intention to stick with one and only picture, but mine is obviously better from my point of view. I see it as WP: Good faith.

Edit: I have tried to find consensus here, but community isn't responding so.

Edit2: Please vote which image is better for Sobotka's box.

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3

Image 3

Itsyoungrapper (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of opinion polling[edit]

Hi, I feel like it would be more informative, and easier for readers to interpret, if instead of the raw opinion polling data table we showed the graphical representation of the opinion polling which can be seen on the Opinion polling for the Czech legislative election, 2017 article. It's a way to succinctly display a much wider time-frame of data and is easier to pick the story out than combing through a table of numbers.. I'm not opposed to leaving a few lines of opinion polls number there too, I just find the graph more user-friendly. What does anyone think? Jdcooper (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, actually; a link to the main page and graph (with legend) should suffice, I think, and the table's not particularly an issue. Mélencron (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've done it, is that what you had in mind? Looks better on my browser at least. Jdcooper (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issue on my end. Mélencron (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting parties[edit]

It's not up to any of us to decide who has a chance to score in election. These two parties removed by Novis-M are represented in Senate and consistently observed in polls. Another prospective small parties with known intention to contest should be added, not removed.

Novis-M argues "so again - let's include either parliamentary parties, or all parties...all parties would be over hundred, so I'm going with only parliamentary)"

Since 1992 there's always been 18 to 29 parties contesting (24 last election). 6 to 15 partiest got over 1 % votes (11 last election). No reason to include all parties, that argument is not valid. OK, lets find criteria for which parties include. If the party announced to contest, that would be enough for me, but it's possible to narrow the selection. Having enough support to be tracked in polls might be one way. Reference proving intention and preparations for election may be alternative or additional measure. We can also look at results in previous (regional, european, legislative) elections.

But I insist lower chamber representation isn't good measure at all. In almost every election some properly elected party/ies lost representation (not even talking about those split). And in almost every election, some new party got elected. Being represented isn't the same as having a chance or being relevant. Of course Senate representation also isn't good enough measure. I just used it as an example of relevance of those two parties. Ivojr (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Limiting it to parties that are currently in the chamber is original research and arbitrary. As User:Ivojr says, in every election parties join and drop out of the chamber. Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary, so we have space, and what is more relevant to an article about an election than the parties which are going to stand in it? So my suggestion for criteria for which parties to list would be:

either

current representation in the chamber (unless a source says they are not now planning to stand)
involved in frequent polling
a reliable source says that they are planning to run in the election

This would definitely not be "hundreds of parties", but would fully inform the reader. Jdcooper (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling graph[edit]

I just noticed that the opinion polling graph is very out of date. Who do we ask to get an updated one?? Jdcooper (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Next Czech legislative election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]