Talk:2011 Finnish parliamentary election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2011 Finnish parliamentary election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
July 1, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
September 16, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 28, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Party Colours[edit]

The National Coalition Party is blue in the table at the top of the page, and the Left Alliance is red. How are these colors generated, since both parties for some reason have the color black in the Finland political party colour templates, and the colors on their respective wiki pages doesn't seem to match either? The blue and red look much better and more appropriate, but where are they coming from? I need to know so that I can change color in the election results template. Thanks in advance for the help -- Darthdyas (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply. See Category:Finland political party colour templates. --hydrox (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party[edit]

Why is the Communist Party included in the infobox? They haven't been a notable group for many years and it is extremely unlikely that they will get any seats this time either. If they are included shouldn't every other little party be included as well? --Soppakanuuna (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its to make up the numbers to get a flat figure of 9. (multiples of 3).Lihaas (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3x3 is no excuse, I've seen other election boxes where the bottom row is centered with 2 candidates. Also, I don't think anarcho-liberal yellow is quite the right colour for True Finns. 91.156.237.104 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that the ninth largest party should still be included because you can easily see what the largest party is outside of parliment, so the party that received the 9th amount of votes should be put there.Guyb123321 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After today's election the Pirate Party is larger than the Communist Party. --hydrox (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then would it be allright if someone put that on there as the 9th largest party, in the same style as the others ie +-0 Seats , +0.4% and so on, also is there somewhere where we could put the results for all of the partys, ie the smaller partys that didn't quite make it, cause it would be interesting to just see there votes and there change in votes. Guyb123321 (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised it was there at the bottom of the list, DOH!!! But you seem to be missing 1 registered political party, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Workers%27_Party_%E2%80%93_For_Peace_and_Socialism

It is quite confusing as there are so many far left REGISTERED partys with similar names,

Communist Party Workers Party Communist Workers Party For Peace and Socialism

And so on, so if someone could add the results of the Communist Workers Party For Peace and Socialism that would be much appreciated, link to there wikipedia page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Workers%27_Party_%E2%80%93_For_Peace_and_Socialism Guyb123321 (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign[edit]

This is an ongoing section with an expansion tag, were already working on its improvement (unfortunateyl most sources are in finnish soi its taking time) but were already planmning the movel akin to the Swedish general election, 2010. discussion for that is ongoing and others are welcome to add and help for that too./ the intention is NOT to limit anything to 1 party and an expansion there is ongoing. (see the subsection on debates (which we could remove the subsectio if need be)) At any rate, the current title is pov by any strectch of the imadginationLihaas (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the proper expansion. At the moment the section is biased and far from complete. By the way, I do not believe “posturing” is POV, but that is a point of opinion on which I shall not dwell. – Kaihsu (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a (temporary) subsection title now: “Reactions to True Finns’ stance”, similar to the one about Sweden Democrats in the Swedish 2010 article. I hope this is workable and not considered POV. That subsection is indeed about such, and does not cover the whole policy space under discussion. – Kaihsu (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well its not a reaction, its TF's own words largely. Though to de-pov it, i wouldnt mind removing the debates subsecton and merging the 2.
Tried something new, check that outLihaas (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no edit summary and no commonet here? come opn, were discussing and civilly too.[1]Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring incumbents[edit]

the list is pertinent, particularly for the notable ones. See Irish general election, 2011. we also need something more than the vague "nearly 40"Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar chart than the one used in the Finnish Wikipedia, although it looks a bit clumsy as over half of the names are on red links. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this table does not give very much context and is by large useless trivia for most readers. I would suggest removing it altogether but highlighting few of the most notable retirements. --hydrox (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it seemed pertinent on the irish election, but granted WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse. but how do we decide notability? it could be or/pov.
alternatively we could EL to a site that has it.(Lihaas (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Taloustutkimus[edit]

Article should include the connections. I write here while not having now the link. The gallup company Taloustutkimus is owned by Eero Lehti a parliament representative of the National Coalition Party. In the previous elections in Finland the campaign finance was critized by media and the Group of States Against Corruption. Eero Lehti received the highest campaign support in the year 2007. According to his own report all financing in 2007 was from his farther. When campaign financing was crirtized in 2007, yle published less critical gallup results made by Taloustutkismus owned by Eero Lehti. When Eero Lehti entered the politics, Helsingin Sanomat started own gallups to increase the neutraity of the gallups. Watti Renew (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, writing in a hurry. As I remember, Eero Lehti had not the highest financial support, even if he did have support from his farther, but the highest campaign finance budget in 2007. As I understand, he could finance the campaign also with own funds. Finland had no upper limit for election campaign. Eero Lehti owns not only the Gallup company, Taloustutkimus Oy, but also many free newspapers, delivered regularity in every home, e.g. Länsiväylä in Espoo. I expect that these ownerships are not clear for everybody. According to some stated media critics Eero Lehti has used his media ownerships for his political goals. Watti Renew (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very skeptical of whether this ownership relation is relevant, because as far as I can tell there is zero evidence that Taloustutkimus would have manipulated the results, and independent polls have generally agreed with their results. The best I can come up with a disclaimer of style "Taloustutkimus is owned by MP Eero Lehti", which does not give any context. --hydrox (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If RS says it we can briefly mention it somewhere, perhaps. like a few word sentence in parathensuis?(Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
According to professor Ilkka Ruostesaari (University of Tampere) the gallups influenced the results Tutkija: Gallupeistä syntyi perussuomalaisia vahvistava kierre yle 19.4.2011 The gallups may have favored to direct the opposition to perussuomalaiset (ps)rather that the socialists or greens. Some ps are conservatives. I remembered the Bill Clintons slogan: ”It’s the economy stupid” as the economy is key politics rather than religion, language, marriage, guns, racial questions or aborts. Watti Renew (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification count[edit]

The verification count is now over: http://yle.fi/vaalit/tulospalvelu/2011/index.html Its result is the official result. The number of votes and the percentages ought to be updated now. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be  Done(Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

MP list[edit]

should we have this on the page r o asplit off into another page like the new parliametn?(Lihaas (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Probably better as a separate article; even the Finnish article on the election doesn't list all the new MPs. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
should we call it the list of MPs in the election or the page for the parliament for this term.?(Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Also, we could add the leaders seat (since all leaders won theirs, excetp pirate party). Also akin tot he ireland election page.(Lihaas (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Strongly against any lists in the main article, especially against "list of X people" -type of lists in the article wihtout any context, and full of red links of course. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --hydrox (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support it in a split? with 3 peoplei think we can go ahead with it. prescedence does exist on wikipedia.(Lihaas (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
 Done(doing)Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

  1. [2] the tag was removed pending "I think the percentages of the northern districts compared to the national average in the parentheses prove that the north has been a stronger-than-average area for the party" however, the cite onlyprovides 2007 for the statement that it has historically been that way. its a bit deceptive.
  2. [3] the addition is good but unsocurced. also who crtifies the parties? the electoral commission i presume, but we need to clraify that.
  3. [4] this doesnt add sources. seems like WP:Synthesis that way. and [5] and [6](Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
These were readded without sources, so i tagged them.[7][8](Lihaas (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

WP:Article size[edit]

in what must be the most comprehensive election article outside the english-speaking world weve crossed the 100k mark which means its too large and slow for some to load. What should we cut? the reactions and analysis? or the campaign section perhaps? move to a split off article?(Lihaas (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I hope quantity is not replacing quality here. Personally would suggest refactoring the retiring table out. --hydrox (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-split the burgeoning page for readability per User_talk:89.27.103.116#Question(Lihaas (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

IMPORTANT: Cite formatting[edit]

Please, when adding new cites to this article, always use the {{cite}} templates. They are very easy to use with the Enhanced editing toolbar. To enable it, go to My preferences (upper right-hand corner) -> Editing -> Check "Usability features: Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and click Save.

To add an annotated cite, edit the article, put the cursor where the cite should be added and click the icon with {{ }}. Now, select cite type and fill in the fields. Note: {{Cite news}} "Work" field is for the name of the paper, eg. Helsingin Sanomat. Publisher is the name of the publisher, eg. Sanoma.

Uniform cite formatting is one of the key requirements for the WP:GA. --hydrox (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers and lost votes[edit]

According to media the numbers one and seven were mixed and some votes were not counted but were be lost for this reason. It could make a difference. According to Helsingin Sanomat the numbers in the lists and the instructions were different (like | and 7 plus - on top of it). I do not know if the official numbers were in the election coupons sent to homes or were shown in the election places? In the election place I saw only the list of candidates with numbers from 0 to 9 including 1 and 7, if relevant, like in this text.. Notice: In Helsingin Sanomat a person suggested an easy and costless solution: The problem numbers one and seven will not be used in the next elections. I have not seen good arguments why these numbers should be used. The other way around, some people could argument that for psychological reasons numbers one (the leader) and seven (religious number) could be neglected. For development I suggest that this article would be supplemented with the statistics: How many votes were disqualified? According to the news drawing of a hearth or a sun in the coupon followed in the the disqualification of the vote numbers. Question arises: Who tends to make extra drawings? Is the disqualification thus neutral and necessary if a clear candidate number exists? Do people dare to write different 1 and 7 than shown in the election cabinet, since the rules are more strict than logical? The “wrong” numbers, like 1 and 7 that can be mixed, shown both in the election lists and advertisements, were criticized in the media after the election took place. Watti Renew (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i dont really understand what youre tryign to say but can you provide a link?Lihaas (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're referring to an opinion page article. Those are not considered proper sources. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least Helsingin Sanomat had a real article on the subject (which probably lead to the opinion page suggestion): Guess which ones were disqualified. Without knowing Finnish you can look at the numbers; two of the six numbers shown were deemed ambiguous (empty ballot paper). Although 1 and 7 are the worst pair, also the pairs 4 and 9 and 3 and 5 are problematic. The 1/7 problem has been made worse by changing the way the numbers are taught at school: the new 7 and the old 1 are similar (the angle or the length of the "nose" on the 1 was less important while the 7 had the additional line). A recommended number sample is shown on the election coupons, but I think most people write the numbers as usually.
There are statistics on disqualified votes, but (to my knowledge) not on the reason of disqualification. You are allowed to write the name of the candidate or underline the number, as clarification, but a wrong name disqualifies the vote, as does ambiguous numbers and any additional markings. And then we have the votes for Donald Duck. Usually about half a percent of the votes are disqualified.
(The disqualified numbers were 51/57 and 18/78.)
--LPfi (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a problem in every election in Finland, so it certainly should be mentioned in Elections in Finland, but I don't think there is anything particular to mention in this article.--Ap4k (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the addition to the article was poorly written and irrelevant to the specifics of this article. i removed most but left one part in, although it needs a better source.Lihaas (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether it belongs here at all. The problem is well-known and was handled in the normal way. There was an article and some follow-up discussion in HS and seemingly at least some other paper. I agree the issue should be discussed in Elections in Finland, as this is mainly a trade off between hand filled ballots and some more mechanical procedure. --LPfi (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, although i kept some small part (though it needa cite) so as not to seem to censor on a pov basis.Lihaas (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All 200 seats to the Parliament[edit]

The fact box header states it lists all 200 seats. In fact it lists the nine biggest parties (I suppose), one of which did not get any seats. The 200th seat is that of the Åland representative sv:Elisabeth Nauclér. Shouldn't she be included instead of (or in addition to) Pasi Palmulehto?

Åland has a party system of its own and the issues, especially in the parliament election, are totally different from those in the mainland. The individual result can be seen here and the result per party (or whatever) here. I know it is funny to have an IP number address (belonging to a private company! without DNS records!) for official results, but such are the times over here in Nokia land. Try to find the results via the parliament or ministry of justice (and get to that address) if you do not believe it otherwise.

--LPfi (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nauclér should be included instead of the Pirate Party. Please go ahead and change it. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fantastic point, but i think we tried to include the biggest by number of votes. It may be better to list it by seats gained, that also takes care of the 200 seats. If consensus supports the change (and so far it does with 3 of us) id definately advocate changing it. youre welcome to be WP:BOLD
wel also need some background/campaign/party issues for aland here.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by seats won, not seats gained (increased). Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what you mean, its already sorted by total seats and not seats increased, in both th infobox and the results table. been standard paractice for some years now..Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "all 200 seats" only means that all seats were up for election (as always in Finnish elections). The chart lists parties by votes. The Åland representative is mentioned in the more detailed chart under 'Results'. As it is mentioned there, I don't see a reason to mention it separately in the chart on the top of the page, as it would be an exception to rank by votes -order. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Nauclér sits in the Swedish Parliamentary Group. Technically this is not the same as the SFP group, but in practice it is. Nevertheless, it would be misleading to include Borgerlig Allians in the national party list, since they didn't field candidates in the mainland at all. But, neither is the Pirate Party - no matter their intentions or registration - a parliamentary party. I'd suggest leaving the ninth field empty. --vuo (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement[edit]

i changed somethings round per Wikipedia:Peer_review/Finnish_parliamentary_election,_2011/archive1 (Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Suomen Sisu[edit]

whats the story with them? any connection to TF? a google search leads to blog posts ready to condemn as "neo-nazi". but is there a connection we can add here to electoral politics?(Lihaas (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Suomen Sisu is a nationalist organisation, but not neo-nazi. The organisation is not affiliated with any party, but four of their members were elected to the the Parliament as True Finns MPs (Jussi Halla-aho, Juho Eerola, Olli Immonen, James Hirvisaari) - Suomen Sisu congratulated the four members on the organisation's website.[9] --89.27.103.116 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to add that. care to add it?(Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Finnish parliamentary election, 2011/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Bellatores (t.) 10:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Well-written:
    • Seems to be generally well written. Some issues though;
      • When using only the form Eduskunta in the lead, it should be noted in parenthesis what this is exactly (Parliament of Finland). Done
      • The opinion polling table could better be cut down sligthly to be limited to one year of polls. On my screen, the table currently floats somewhat out of the page. Done
      • Is the stock market arrows really needed for the table of election results? I think it is somewhat inappropriate. I know they are used on Swedish election pages (for some reason), but they are not used anywhere else. Could the table be changed more into how these normally are on Wikipedia election pages? Done>???
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
    • Generally well-sourced; but there are some tags (clarification, citation needed etc. Done) and dead links that must be addressed for the article to be passed as GA. Done
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    • No apparent problems.
  4. Neutral:
    • No apparent problems.
  5. Stable:
    • The article is stable; no edit-wars or such.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    • No problems.

Please address the issues I found for now, as the article will not be able to pass before this has been done. When they have been addressed, I will look over the article again. – Bellatores (t.) 10:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First point about Eduskunta done, going to split off polls section (itll also shorten the page), i dont quite understand what is meant by the third point, and im in the process of working with the other main editor to address the tags.Lihaas (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: only need 3 deadlinks addressing as far as i an see.(Lihaas (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Well, it is not actually so much the red/green arrows, as that each row of the table is more inflated than necessary. If you check the tables on other recent elections (i.e. [10] [11] [12] [13]), you can clearly see that they all easily fit most of, if not the entire results table in a single picture frame. Only one line is used for each party in these tables, while each party gets three lines here. It is my opinion that this is a waste of space, which also makes it a bit more difficult to read and get a decent overview. – Bellatores (t.) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enouigh, ive now removed the translations which are mosre suited to the party pages.Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the chart shows that "Other unrepresented parties" got 98.5 % of the vote; that should refer to represented parties. Also, there's something wrong with the Communist Workers' Party's paragraph on the chart. --89.27.103.116 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved all issues now.(Lihaas (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

You need to address a few more issues before I can pass the article;

  • A "why" tag remains under the "Debates" subsection.
  • You should address the issue pointed out by the ip over your last comment here; I would suggest just scrapping that particular row, as I don't really see what its purpose is. Also fix the Communist Workers' Party row.
  • There is also a "which" tag under the election table, as well as a "why" tag under "Reactions", Domestic.
  • There appears to still be some dead links in the article; check it here [14] – Bellatores (t.) 18:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cant see anything wrong with the Comms on the chart but sorted the other bit.
Asked the finnish ip on the why tag, as the source is in finnish and ic an read
Fixed 2 deadlinks, waiting for the third if the finnish ip can do itLihaas (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneLihaas (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. (Not sure if this is the proper format to put my point...) The Government formation section should contain a brief summary of the agreed-upon government program, (while the full article would be at Jyrki Katainen's cabinet). -- Frous (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this should be for the talk page. but be WP:BOLDLihaas (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably. But I mean, to get the GA status, it needs also a brief summary on how policies are going to change (or remain the same), acc. to the government platform plus some brief political analysis on the platform by third parties. Because, surprise surprise, that's what a democratic election is usually for — a discussion to determine whether to maintain or change policies. -- Frous (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
true, be bold and add it with sources.Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the article has recently been the subject of extensive edit-warring and massive content discussions on its talk page. Because of this, and because the article has been on hold for almost a month already, I don't see myself having any other choice but to fail this GA nomination. When the article has become stable again, and all the discussions are resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks. – Bellatores (t.) 21:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

Hi.

The first sentence could be written much better, in my opinion. "An election to the Eduskunta (Parliament of Finland), was held on 17 April 2011 after the previous parliament's term expired." That is correct but in my English, if you present an event, you begin it with a definite article. The version with "an election" would sound good if the article starts like "yeah there was an election in some country, but anyway the main point is THIS".

So. This is my proposition:

"The Finnish parliamentary election of 2011 was the 36th election to the Eduskunta (Parliament of Finland), held on 17 April 2011 after the termination of the previous parliamentary term."

Opinions? -- Frous (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. General convention and norms (As opposed to a specific instance_) goes without including the year but highlighting the election and where
2. there are multiple elections in a country , so one of htem was held at this point.
but lets get a tie0-break opinion, if you must.Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General conventions? Well, that convention certainly doesn't apply to the 2008 US election. Could you please give examples or simply WP:Guidelines or such to prove that convention? But anyway, I don't wanna get stuck on that, whether to bold the year or not, I don't care, my main point is the wording of the sentence.
Multiple elections? They have one parliamentary election every fourth year in Finland, therefore the. Even if you wrote an article about all the elections from 1907 to 2011, you would still say "the Finnish parliamentary election of 1907", because each one of the elections is different because of the year when they were held. Too bad the specific Wikipedia article on this isn't very helpful... If you present a class of objects through one of its members, you write a (e.g. A camel is an even-toed ungulate...), similarly when you present the concept of an election (An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office.). In this case, you are not presenting any concept to the reader, you are presenting one specific example of the concept, therefore "the Finnish parl...". Besides, the header, i.e. the name of the article (Finnish parliamentary election, 2011), indicates that you use the when you start to talk about the election (the header introduces the thing, the first sentence repeats it with the). I'm not trying to be rude when I say this, but I suggest you reread your books on English grammar. -- Frous (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish general election, 2010Kyrgyzstani parliamentary election, 2010 Kyrgyzstani parliamentary election, 2010Guyanese legislative election, 2011
its not definative, if it was wed have the date thre. it seems there is a big split between the norms in english-speaking cpountries' electctions adn the others, though.
Anyways, lets get 3O and refreain from WP:NPA as it explicitly says discuss content/issues NOT editors. You seem to have said youre new round here, so dont repeat it with others, they might get more pissed.Lihaas (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I admit my wordings about you reverting my edits have been too close to personal attacks. I apologize for that. Sorry. But if I invite people to discuss this content issue, do you really consider that an attack? Read my invitations closer, please. I said "IMO dubious" on every invitation... -- Frous (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back to business: this is not an issue on whether the article deals with elections in English-speaking countries or non-English-speaking countries. This is English Wikipedia, so the country's own language has zero influence on how articles about its elections are written. -- Frous (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About third opinion (3O), that's exactly what I was looking for, when I invited people to share their views on the wording. -- Frous (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked by Frous to discuss here, but I have had no previous involvement with him to my knowledge, so I hope I'll be an OK third opinion. Personally I think the new wording is better, but the old wording isn't too bad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Eraserhead1! I have no idea who "should" be invited as a 3O, so I just randomly checked the edit histories of election articles.. -- Frous (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted an edit that uses non-standard date format in citations (using {{date}} templates). I think it's best to adhere to established conventions here. --hydrox (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the order day-month-year non-standard? Where's the standard written? I have always written "June 24" instead of "21 June", but I have made an exception this, because this article uses the "day-month" order, i.e. the British English order. -- Frous (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Hydrox, your point was the template "date"? Ok, I didn't notice the "don't wikify" text in the description for the {{cite web}} and cos I noticed in the beginning of my work that some citations has wikified the date, I repeated that. So, I'll have some work, copyediting them... -- Frous (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. But you are correct though that the article uses British dates. En-Wikipedia never uses {{date}} in the citation templates ({{cite....) --hydrox (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I add references unless its really obvious I just use British dates - but using ISO (yyyy-mm-dd) or US dates would be cool too, and noone's ever marked it up as being an issue. Personally unless all the references use the same format - as they do in iPad for example - then you shouldn't worry too much about it :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frous: your NPA was to "go back and read grammar" which is no a CONTENT discussion but an attack on editors which is explicitly ruled against in the guidelines.
There is a place for getting 30 opinions which is more neutral than personal invites.
Also the date formats (and i used to do the wrong till it was rbought to my attention) is as per MOSdates.Lihaas (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the place to get 30 opinions? I don't know, could you please tell me.
Lihaas, yes I have been too rude towards you, but, in addition, you can also be accused of seeking OWNERSHIP of the article, by constantly reverting my rephrasings. I'll stop attacking and you'll tell me where we can get 30 opinions to discuss the content and grammar. Thank you. -- Frous (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issue clarifications[edit]

there were some changes made to the page again despite the BOLD addition being challenged which calls for BRD, and there was then no discussion or consensus.

  1. [15] per peer review (see above) to clean the page up.
  2. [16] has some redundancies and spelling errors.
  3. [17] proper english and more detailed clarification thanb "on:"
  4. [18] "the" party, not just the name (reading it through will show the need for the first) + they are parliamentariy parties not groups (in the latter case it would be a coalition consisting of many parties, which we dont see in finland (except perhaps nauclear's aland group))
  5. [19] BOLD edits reverted mean BRD, which was not asked for let alone givebn,. It also not a main article as it doesnt deal with the result, it gives additional info hence "see"
  6. [20] we dont need to change a quote + convention to italicise names in proper noun sense when not the person or place. --> BOLD edit challenged means BRD
  7. [21] Overlink and removal of content without explanation in the summary. If we are to to remove "electoral district" wed need a cite caveat to say that the electoral and admiknistrative districts are the same lest it becomes OR. Other grammatical edits as well.
  8. [22] removal of content and chaning quotes is not "more concise writing"
  9. [23] the editor has used confuseding terms for YLE (and overlink) in the same article. Is it YLE as written here or yleisradio as written above? and pditto with use of Social Democrats vs. Social Democratic Party in the same page.
  10. [24]/[25] as duly mentioned when the content was split off to another page it i snot removed or censored it is to shorten a page that is well over the 100k readability (see section above.)
  11. [26] removal of conent and sources w/o reason + ditto [27] + couple of more content removals but i also lost the libjnk
  12. [28] the entire meaing of the phrase "maintain a need to cut" was inverted in saying "not accept cutting" with an edit summary that doesntmention anyuthiong about pensions.
  13. [29] "accused "certain groups inside the True Finns" of instigating hate speech" was added without cite + " maintain that the dropping the mention of the" doesntmake sense + " Ready to work with any party in Finland, Mari Kiviniemi " you can start a sentence without any background to what is being mentioned ie- "ready to..."
  14. [30] again this micks about with a qupte -- were not writing a newspaper artic;le
  15. [31] there was no consensus on this as per BRD.


About the third: "due to Finland's capacity to influence the European Union's decision in regard to affecting a bailout"? Way too complicated, I think, considering what the writer eventually wants to say with that sentence, which is "due to the fact that Finland was able to stop the bailout".
About the fourth: ok, the use of the word "group", my mistake. (The idea was that the group in the parliament simply decreased.) About the paragraphs, the whole article is split into separate parts for the election, results and gov formation. Therefore, it is (in my opinion) more than reasonable to split the summary paragraphs accordingly. (First, the basic info of the event, second, the importance of the upcoming event with polls, third, the result, fourth, the government formation.
About the fifth: Hmmmm. Isn't it a policy that we use the (=) signs with headers? And the 36th Parliament IS the result.
Forgot, which one of those points: as far as I know English, you don't have to add the definite article the before every word that would need it, this IN CASE you have a longer list of words needing it.
Overall, about calls for BRD: I understand that, of course, if you make significant edits to the article, you should discuss first. Still, I think if you rewrite the text but maintain its actual content, it's not always necessary. And I don't think one has to start a talk on every use of the, an, punctuation. Some of those five edits included those minor things. In addition to BRD, it is more than welcome to use common sense also. -- Frous (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot: remember Lihaas, that the BRD is not an official policy, though it has a purpose and you have made a good point when referring to it. -- Frous (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And about the Green League's issues:[32] if you have just two sentences, you do not a have an obligation to split them apart if they just happen to present different sides of the subject (Green League). I think, it just annoys the reader if the paragraphs consist of one sentence and it is confusing. (common sense should be used in this case). -- Frous (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i wrote something but it got lost in an edit conflcit, ill re-reply later)_Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, please. Common sense. Do you really call for a discussion on every change to the wordings you have written? WP:OWN is a policy. You yourself don't explain all your edits either... -- Frous (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All well and good and we do work with editors, you are new around here and im trying to show you the policy/guyideliens we use d(which was also [for the better] taught to me when i started. thre are norms and conventions which can change but need discussion. Ive duly explained each and every edit i made above. you cant quote somethign as policy and then suggest somethign else is only a guideline.
the original wording per the portugal bailout was better. this is not the simple english wikipedia, so its not supposed to spell it out for "simple english" its comprehensible to advanced speakers of the language for whom english wikipedia caters too.
for the big reorg youre proposing a discussion (especially after BOLD reverts_) is warranted by anyone veteran editor on WP.
there is not policy on subsection. but when we have multiple subsection (As per the one removed which had THREE subsection right by eahc other without any text in between)
there were a lot of unexplained content removals and quotes that were mucked about with
while it may not be a policy, there is not policy on WP at all. theyre all guidelines intended tp avoid wars. especially as a new editor the first recourse on contoversial edits is to discuss. (incidentally, NPA doesnt stnd in good steadparticularly when the pot calling the kettle blackLihaas (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where can we get more views on the wordings I have suggested? So there is a noticeboard of smth, right? Where? How long should we wait for views on the wordings of one sentence? I'm sorry I have done NPA, but I, again, think WP:OWN by reverts of insignificant wording changes is your problem, as well. -- Frous (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[33] 1. language in edit summary, 2. WP:LEAD to summarise not copy verbatim from the text. we dont need to clog details.
[34] see the article "government formation" is very prominent there and the cabinet article is overlink (actually this one is overlink too, my bad, will correct it)
[35] see above, mass reorg needs discussion
[36] not true, see convention pon stable version
[37] what is "work career" redunant? lenghtening working years
the rest of the stuff i overwrote in edit conflict im about to add back.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Regarding this edit:[38]

  • "public administration and local government" is the official translation used by the government (http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/hallitus/jasenet/en.jsp)
  • consistence with chair(man/woman)/leader (btw, chairperson is linguistically completely as acceptable as the forms connoting sex of the person)
  • the constitution has not changed yet, so therefore "would read"
  • the translation of the act does not require quotation marks (I think so, because the government give a semi-official translation already, the quotation marks would indicate that it is not even a semi-official translation)
  • (dewikified the dates in the refs)
  • MTV3 is a TV channel and its owner is Bonnier Group. Damit. I'm not sure whether you should consider MTV3 or Bonnier the publisher. :/
  • the is never used before a professional or occupational title
  • "It is anticipated that he will" - nope, WP:Verifiability, you need source that says it is right now anticipated that he will run for presidency
  • "As the top spots of the party leadership went to Southern Finland many of the party's voters in the northern part of the country (where the party's support has been significantly higher than the national average: in the 2007 election the party received over 43% of the votes in both Oulu and Lapland electoral districts, compared with its nationwide support of 23.1%,[1] while in 2003 the party's vote share in the two northernmost districts was even higher)[2] felt disenchanted..." I mean, you REALLY need to rephrase that, it's way too unreadable.
  • the incumbent -> incumbent (occ. title, above)
  • place -> status (better wording) -- Frous (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • yep, just reviewed
  • in the original entrance of chair[person i queried if that was the official term since it was in capital. leader seems to cover it, but either way.
  • "would have read"
  • I didnt put quotes on the translation, i only italicised the finnish wording. i would tend to agree but left your (?) version.
  • no idea, i left the publisher as bonnier in the ref you added it to. although television is the proper word not tv
  • not true at all.
  • good catch. i didnt add that, i presumed whoever did had it in the souce. i only kept will as 2012 is not here yet.
  • seems to have been rephrased. i sjustput norther./southern/eastern in lower case as its nota propernoun.
  • 1. incumbent is not a title, 2. "the" does make more sense, you can t start a sentence without the caveat due. ie- jsut throw a word out there. not in written english at least.
  • of languages? yep, thats left inv.Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen is correct? Google "the incumbent prime minister mari kiviniemi" and "incumbent prime minister mari kiviniemi", the latter gives you 200 hits, the former gives you 8. That's not very much but IMO it is a strong indication. -- Frous (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Tulos". 192.49.229.35. Retrieved 18 April 2011.
  2. ^ "Tilastokeskus - Vaalitilastot - Puolueiden äänimäärät vaalipiireittäin 2003 ja muutos edellisiin vaaleihin verrattuna, suuret puolueet" (in Finnish). Stat.fi. 2003-03-28. Retrieved 2011-05-03.

Points of disagreement[edit]

Sme stuff seems sorted but some stuff is still disputed. to outline the points of disagreement:

use of the
first sentence format
italicising
reorg post-results section
<add more here>Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
splitting the gov talks into three summarizing paragraphs (with TF -> no no no, with Left -> unsustainable difs, Greens unwilling -> back to sixpack) — where is the exact discussion that dictates reverting that splitting (that I made)? If there is. -- Frous (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
see below, it was not removed for content.Lihaas (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reorganising[edit]

Shouldn't the results for each party stand logically before the reactions to the results? The whole text for government formation should not be at 36th Finnish parliament, it should be at Jyrki Katainen's cabinet. After that's done, the main article should be removed from there. -- Frous (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why all my versions to the government formation have been reverted? What was wrong with me splitting the three phases into their own paragraphs (talks with TF -> they say say no no no, talks with the Left -> strong differences, Greens unwilling -> back to sixpack)? -- Frous (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was put under anaylsis section, which by convention comes after results. there could be ground to move it above (although what subsection?), but id like to see what others say instead of just 2 of us
good point, we could well move govt formation to the kaitenen's cabinet page as a background/first section there.
the additions were not removed for content, there were removed for the article size (see the baove section on this)_ as the pageis well over 100k. all the content is/should be on the ther page.Lihaas (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But my additions could not have been simply summarized? Just simply revert the whole lot of text I wrote like half an hour? I'm not attacking anyone, but I just want to say everyone, that's not really welcoming to any new editor... -- Frous (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarise? the only thing about summation was the 1-line in the lead that its already in the article.
the other text content additions you made are valuable and should be on WP, just not this article. Either one of the pages you wrote above in this section would be fine. WP:Article size means we have to cut after 100k in sizeLihaas (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case the one who reverted my three-split, didn't consider it valuable, because I can't find it neither in this oage nor on the 36th parliament... -- Frous (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then add it. its ll in the history for this page so you dont need to redo it. just copy+pste+Lihaas (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording, grammar and the order of the sections[edit]

Lot to discuss:

But first per BOLD --> BRD discuss first then add back, again the stuff was added back when this discussion is ongoing and not gained consensus yet.Lihaas (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

I think the first sentence could be written much better, in my opinion. "An election to the Eduskunta (parliament of Finland) was held on 17 April 2011 after the termination of the previous parliamentary term." That is correct English, no doubt, but if you just presented the concept named election, you would prefer to begin it with an indefinite article, an. (Similarly if you present a species A camel is an even-toed ungulate...) But here you are not presenting any concept, you are presenting an example of it.

So. This is my proposition (main points are the and 36th, whether to bold or not some words, I don't care):

"The Finnish parliamentary election of 2011 was the 36th election to the Eduskunta (parliament of Finland), held on 17 April 2011 after the termination of the previous parliamentary term."

Opinions? -- Frous (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write your views below this header
dont agree at all on including 36th, its not in the title, but we cna include it in the lead just not in bold.
we dotn usually bold the dates (odd, sometime) which refers to the general election. its been done many times so to make such a radical change would need a stronger consensus than an individual (who may be BOLD but then needs to adhere to BRD)(Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Well, lots of other titles of election articles have the ordinal number neither, but still they use it in the introductory sentence, such as US election 2008. -- Frous (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, could you please specify the source for the italicization of Eduskunta (Eduskunta)? MOS:ITALIC certainly does not allow that or at least mention anything regarding foreign institutions. -- Frous (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could make sense if it were emphasized that it is the original name, therefore by convention the sentence would go "An election to the Parliament of Finland (eduskunta) ...". If it is insisted on that the bolded words are not linked (which is not prohibited by MOS:BOLDTITLE...), you could link "parliamentary term" to Parliament of Finland.[39] -- Frous (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS + MOS:Ety(Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

"The" with occupational or professional titles + name[edit]

I'm not sure if I've got it wrong, but I think you don't use the before the title if it's followed by a name, even if there were an attribute like incumbent.

  • "incumbent Prime Minister Mari Kiviniemi" correct
  • "the incumbent Prime Minister Mari Kiviniemi" incorrect
  • "Chair(man/woman/person) of the Centre Party and incumbent Prime Minister Mari..." correct
  • "the True Finns' chairperson Timo Soini" correct (the doesn't refer to Soini, it refers to TF)

These true? Any existing rules? Any agreed-upon conventions and where specifically at en.wiki? -- Frous (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write your views below this header

Italicising[edit]

You italicise only the magazines, not the companies.

  • YLE, Yleisradio, Finnish Broadcasting Company, MTV3 — correct
  • YLE, Yleisradio, Finnish Broadcasting Company, MTV3 — incorrect

These true? Any existing rules? Any agreed-upon conventions and where specifically at en.wiki? -- Frous (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write your views below this header
Possible point here. though sometime companies have been italicised as proper nouns. so FBC is the co and YLE /MTVX is the outlet? (ofcourse magazines and channels, now that we have tv)(Lihaas (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Yleisradio = YLE = the Finnish Broadcasting Company. All the same. BBC, Channel 4, WCBS-TV, stations listed at CBS Television Stations, none of those are italicized. (Ok, well strictly speaking the Finnish Broadcasting Company is the company and YLE1, YLE2, YLE Teema, YLE FST5 etc. are the outlets.) Specifically, what are the italicized broadcasting companies or TV stations you are talking about, Lihaas? -- Frous (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a point: Manual of style gives an explicit list of italicized words — no companies of any kind are included so YLE and MTV3 are clearly non-standard. Lihaas, you should seriously read this aspect of BRD: "-- provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense" We shouldn't even waste time on text formatting issues, MOS is a guideline and no rationale for an exception has been provided....so could I remove the italics that we can move on? -- Frous (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EVERYTHING is a guideline to preventedit wars. There is also a specific list of "When not to use italics" This subject seems to have a need for a 3O as were split and some convention does put it in italics )(some ofcourse doesnt)(Lihaas (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I'm sorry but what an effing rationale is that for italicizing the companies? The list "use italics here" does not include companies, the list "do not use italics here" neither. Italics should be used sparingly for emphasis, so if you are thinking about emphasizing, for example, the polling firm Taloustutkimus, why? -- Frous (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not going to dignify you with a response till you learn to be WP:CIVIL in both the responses you made today. whetheryou like it or not consensus is not going to built your way. Learn to communicate and then we can discuss in a civil maneer and gain consensus,Lihaas (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"some convention does put it in italics" Where is that convention? Could you please link us there. -- Frous (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg of post-election sections[edit]

By common sense, the election is held first, then come the results, then come the reactions and more detailed political analyses to the results. Party-specific results are now placed after the reactions of politicians, media and so on. Which is quite unlogical in my opinion...

Any agreed-upon conventions and where specifically at en.wiki? -- Frous (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write your views below this header
by convention analysis comes after the reactions because reactions are immediate and analysis are more nuanced by political scientists and what ahve you after the refsult are digested. conventions are on most election pages, esp. since after the beginningof 2010. Party specific results are more newer but they seemed (at the time appropriate) more fit for analysis. this comes be undone with consensus. im not hard and fast bound by it.(Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Summary of the government formation process[edit]

If you read the text closely, you see three phases:

1) TF says no no no -> six-party talks 2) Leftist parties say no to VAT increase -> no sixpack 3) Greens say no -> back to sixpack

So the beginning summary and the paragraph should contain all those three. Concisely. -- Frous (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write your views below this header
I dont mind changing the summation however you want, i would just calla gainst adding back lots more text. the details can go on the respective page.
Post your proposed addition here before thepage and we can work this out easil.(Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Yleisradio, YLE or Finnish Broadcasting Company?[edit]

Which one should we use? If we choose one, the same (or its abbreviations) must be used consistently in both the text and the references. -- Frous (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, it should be consistent, which it wasnt. I dont know but we used to use just YLE in the stable versionLihaas (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I think an average reader of English Wikipedia has no clue what YLE stands for. Therefore, I would prefer "the Finnish Broadcasting Company" and when it is mentioned the first time, there could be "(Yleisradio)" afterwards. -- Frous (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cool, go ahead with that. though for the abbreviation use FBC then because the other part wont back sense.Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. IMO we can't use any abbreviations if it not declared official by the company. Well, the same goes with the SPP for Swedish People's Party that I have written... this gives me headache... -- Frous (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wo, not sure what gronds for that, but in written text when you repeat a name you do generally come out with some acronmy so as not to type it all again. that is then written by the first instance.Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But do you use a non-standard, that is, unofficial abbreviation? I have serious doubts if that is encyclopedic at all. (Well, then of course, that applies to NCP and SPP, too...) Could I just change it to "the Finnish Broadcasting Company" on all instances? Not that it should necessarily be like that as of now, just that the text is as consistent as possible. If we choose to change it, then we change it on all instances. -- Frous (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually. We can't use any of those. No invented abbreviations are allowed. The NCP's English website uses no English abbreviation[40] so we have to write it as "National Coalition Party" on every occasion. (I personally believe we can chop it like "National Coalition" because the English name comes literally from the longer form kansallinen kokoomuspuolue[41] which has then over time been contracted to (kansallinen) kokoomus.)
So, Wikipedia:MOSABB is a guideline and no rationale for an exception has been provided....so could we stop wasting time, can I just write "the Finnish Broadcasting Company" and "National Coalition (Party)" on every occasion so that we can move on? If we want to change it later, then we will change it then, but right now the article has to be consistent. -- Frous (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, standard pacticein english,. read academic papers and youll rhey all make up abbreviations to avoid repetition. its not official its just ofr the article (and can link somewhere else). Im fine with moving it to FBC (spelt out),, it would be inconventient to repeat it, but go ahead if you want.
But i digress on NCP. thats article on WP uses the name proper with party on it.Lihaas (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, besides the article National Coalition Party has no NCP abbreviations. -- Frous (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
true, and its in your right, but then we need consensus beyond 2 of us.(Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
In other words, you think that we need a 3O to determine whether we can or can't make up abbreviations? Sorry but that's just waste of time, since no rationale for making up an abbreviation has been given. And about academic papers: so f*ing what?? This is Wikipedia, and it has its own guidelines. -- Frous (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref cleanup[edit]

IMO, "Finnish Broadcasting Company" should be the form used regarding the former question. On a related note, the refs alltogether needs a thorough cleanup, and should use a consistent form. With dates, I prefer "22 June 2011" rather than "2011-06-22". In any case, they should all use the exact same format, not examples of many different formats as it does at present. – Bellatores (t.) 14:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

they were once upon a time. I had no objection to FBC as above. At any rate the conesnensus building is throughly solit 1-1 as wontpass til another opinion(Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Finnish parliamentary election, 2011/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Plarem (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The notes below are done, the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct and the article complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are enough references, all of them to reliable sources and as far as I can see, the article contains no original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It has all the major aspects of the election and is focused on only the election.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article seems fair to me.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    The article is stable, without any visible edit wars in the last 500 edits.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All are tagged and there were no un-free images, the pictures are appropriately used and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    – Plarem (User talk contribs) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Hi, I'm going to review this article for GA. I am not Finnish, so I will learn a bit today about the Finnish electoral system.

Anyway, enough chatter, here are some minor issues which I couldn't fix myself:

From National Coalition Party:

the NCP has been strongly supportive of Finland's participation in EU bailouts with Katainen underlining the importance of what he "European responsibility".

I think that there is a word missing in the Italic text.  Done 213.94.240.18 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find any issues that I didn't find, then please fix them.

Other than that, I find no more issues with the article. If that can be fixed, then I am going to pass it. Until then, on hold for 7 days.

PASSED - Just in the nick of time, tomorrow at four was the deadline; I congratulate you on your achievement and I will change the boxes on the top of the talk page to GA. Once again congratulations and I hope that this will be able to go on to FA standard. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Pöntinen[edit]

The section concerning NCP candidate Kai Pöntinen deals with controversies during the 2009 European election, not this election. The source used is this[42], you can see the dating 4.6.2009 on the upper-right corner. --128.214.69.228 (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point then.
Removed DoneLihaas (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA checklist[edit]

  • Why so many citations in the lead?
  • Where footnotes are at the end of a sentence, please ensure that the closing period appears before the footnotes and is not omitted
  • Ensure that all foreign-language sources are identified as such, and that English sources are not misidentified as foreign-language (as in FN 112)
  • FN 22: publisher?
  • Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using base URLs, website names or publishers
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers</dtrike>
  • Publication names should be italicized
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • FN 72: formatting dont see an issue
  • Bloomberg or Bloomberg L.P.
  • Check for minor formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • In general, make sure formatting is consistent - for example, compare FNs 101 and 102
  • FN 103: retrieval date?
  • Make typographical changes to source titles to comply with our local manual of style - for example, don't write a title in all-caps
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • check for consistent naming - for example, The Wallstreet Journal or The Wall Street Journal?Lihaas (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Finnish parliamentary election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Finnish parliamentary election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 87 external links on Finnish parliamentary election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on Finnish parliamentary election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Finnish_parliamentary_election&oldid=1212495938"