Talk:2017 Icelandic parliamentary election

Requested move 2 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Seeing as this is a request by the editor who created the article, I've expedited this. You could have created the article at the "Next" title by simply going to that redirect and starting editing it. Number 57 21:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Icelandic parliamentary election, 2020 → Next Icelandic parliamentary election – I only created this page with the year 2020 because the page Next Icelandic Parliamentary election still redirects to the 2016 election. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Decimal points

To avoid continuing an edit war with an imperious and unruly editor, I'm hoping I could get some feedback on decimal points? In the previous elections pages 2013 and 2009 for polling tables under "prior result", the percentages are shown to the hundredth. I kind of like this because it shows the precision of an actual result as opposed to the necessarily inexact science of polling. And so I implemented it for this new page, in line with the precedent of previous pages. The other editor thinks it "confusing", which I genuinely don't understand. Maybe User:Number 57, your thoughts? Nevermore27 (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I entirely agree with Batmacumba that it should be one decimal place. Two is unnecessarily precise and inconsistent with the other figures in the table. Number 57 08:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough Nevermore27 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Electrograph

Electrograph is useful for keeping track of polls, but it shouldn't be used as a source in the polling table for three reasons 1) its unreliable - there are often small rounding errors and a source should be accurate b) it doesn't specify the numbers for the small parties, which is useful info if you have to include one of them in the table later on (as we did with Vidreisn), or want to check what lies behind the numbers 3) it doesn't specify what date the poll is published, which is the criteria we are using for dating the polls. Especially with MMR polls, where the pollster provides a running index of its polls a link to this is preferable. I disagree that Electrograph having neat graphics (or being in English) makes up for their other shortcomings.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Pirates leadership

We've been going around in circles on how to represent the leadership of the Pirates in the infobox. The Pirate Party does not believe in a traditional party leadership: we all agree on that, I think. Previously, however, we have put Birgitta Jónsdóttir in the infobox, with a footnote explaining the situation and noting that the party's formal chair for the 2017-18 period is Halldóra Mogensen. This is because Birgitta is the parliamentary chair and is frequently described as the party's leader by reliable sources. She de facto had that role.

However, Birgitta is not standing in the new election. So it seems sensible to remove her. We all agree on that. But what do we put instead? I favour putting no name and saying "collective leadership" with a footnote saying the same stuff about Halldóra and noting Birgitta's role (as she still remains parliamentary chair as far as I know). However, others favour listing Halldóra as the leader (with footnote). I think this is wrong. I can't see any RS citations that talk about Halldóra in the way they used to talk about Birgitta. To list Halldóra in the infobox is to exaggerate her role. The Irish general election, 2016 article has an infobox including a party with a collective leadership, the Anti-Austerity Alliance–People Before Profit, and they get around the problem by just leaving the leader line blank. Without RS describing someone else in a similar de facto leadership position, I favour sticking with "collective leadership" or leaving the line blank, while preserving a footnote that goes into all the details.

What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andri12: It would be useful if you could discuss this subject here: it's difficult to understand your reasoning just from edit summaries. Bondegezou (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

–

i would say the best option is

"collective leadership" + footnote about Halldóra Mogensen

without the stuff about Birgitta Jónsdóttir as she never was the de facto leader that would have been Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson the problem is how she portray her self in the foreign media as captain pirate de facto leader

she even asked foreign/local media organization to refer to her as ""captain pirate "" and that was heavily criticized by other mps and party members

but in realty in the local media and the party she is just another mp

and some foreign media organization are finally catching on this is what bbc wrote about her ""She has been accused by some party members of using the leadership vacuum to grab power.""

the last year Pirates election campaign was lead by Einar Aðalsteinn Brynjólfsson and Ásta Guðrún Helgadóttir and and Smári McCarthy

Birgitta was not involved as she is generally unpopular with the public

and on the parliamentary chair it is just been few weeks since she became parliamentary chair of pirates replacing Einar Brynjólfsson

Andri12 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:

The current 'collective leadership' and footnote seems fine to me, but could we add the party's logo instead of a photo of the leader? It looks odd having the slot blank. Alarichall (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I like that idea, but the only other example I can think of for parties with collective or no formal leadership is Ireland (Solidarity–People Before Profit or Independents 4 Change), and they don't show a party logo or anything on the elections page (link). Do we want to start a new precedent? Certainly not opposed to it. 04:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Icelandic elections frequently feature blank images due to no image being available. I don't see how the situation with this one party causes any aesthetic imbalance. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above: in instances where no portrait is available for use in an infobox, the parameter is simply left blank (or a transparent placeholder image is used). Mélencron (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I did see an example recently where a party with a collective leadership had the party logo instead of a picture... can't remember where though! Sorry. Will see if I can dig it out. Bondegezou (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason why {{composition bar}} is being used in the infobox?

MOS:INFOBOX#Style, color and formatting suggests that extraneous style formatting shouldn't be included in an infobox without good reason. Given that the total number of seats is already listed in the infobox, and that the number of seats can simply be listed as text, I don't see a strong reason not simply list only the number, as is the case elsewhere. (It seems to be used in articles back to the 1995 election and hasn't been discussed elsewhere, so I figured I'd bring it up.) Mélencron (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted. It seems surplus to requirements to include them. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd go further and ask why {{Infobox election}} is being used here instead of {{Infobox legislative election}}, seeing as this is a proportional vote with numerous parties winning seats. Number 57 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Main page grammar

On the Main page, "In the Icelandic parliamentary election, the Independence Party win the most seats." That should be ...wins... or ...won..., but I don't know how that can be fixed.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Nice catch. WP:ERRORS is the place to go. Mélencron (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Results table

Let's use this version of the election table instead of the version created here as the aforementioned is the standardised version using Template:Election table as basis. The latter is less informative and is uglier in both code and appearance. --URunICon (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's not. It isn't "standardised" because Election table isn't the standard. I would also contend that every statement in your last sentence is wrong, although I suppose the latter is subjective. Number 57 20:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It is the standard since it's in use in thousands of articles. This creation of yours is only in use in those articles that you've "cleaned up", as you say, when reverting the edits from proper election tables to this customised one. EDIT: At least use proper code in them if you have to own the articles. --URunICon (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not – the wikitable version is also used in thousands of articles (and isn't a creation of mine). And what is "proper code"? Number 57 20:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Election table also uses wikitable, but it is usually more informative and has more features than the plain one, for example it can be called to other articles as well so you'd only have to edit in one place if necessary. Btw, how is your preferred table not less informative? It doesn't even separate total votes from the rejected ones which it obviously should. --URunICon (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Tables can be called to other articles from an article – you can see an example in this code. The current table does separate total votes from rejected ones – total votes is in the row below the rejected votes. Number 57 20:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And I see by "proper code", you just meant unnecessary code (at least judging by this edit). Why is all that extra stuff necessary? It just overcomplicates things and adds over 600 bytes extra to the article. Number 57 20:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

1) Do you actually think that is a better way to call tables? You can't be serious. 2) You should only mark the total number of votes the candidates have received in bold. Then below you should add the turnout which should include the rejected votes. Those are two different numbers. --URunICon (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Yes, I do, and I am serious. Firstly because very few people watch templates, which makes them prone to vandalism – I've come across results templates where dodgy edits have not been spotted for years because the edit probably didn't appear on anyone's watchlist; this is a serious issue and is extremely problematic for Wikipedia's reliability. Keeping the results hard-coded on articles means that far more editors will review changes being made (and sadly there are people out there who deliberately modify results incorrectly). Secondly because in the vast majority of cases it's only the most recent set of results that gets displayed somewhere else. So after the next election happens, that template gets left with only a single transclusion, which isn't advisable for templates. There are editors who go round finding these single-use templates and hard-coding them – not creating it in the first place would save them an awful lot of time and effort.
2. I don't believe that it's the case that only a total of valid votes (this is presumably what you're referring to) should be marked in bold – although it might be done in some cases, it is certainly not the case for most countries' election articles. I don't really understand the remainder of the point being made.

Number 57 21:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

For election articles done well you should look at UK 2017 and France 2017 for example that have outstanding result tables. I don't see you trying to "clean" those up, why is that I wonder. Maybe you understand that your version is plainly crap compared to the better ones. --URunICon (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either of those are outstanding, particularly not the UK one, which I'd say is an almost unreadable mess and probably one of the worst formats out there (it doesn't even include invalid votes or registered voters/turnout, and appears to be largely unsourced). The French one is better, but not an improvement on what we have here IMO; it doesn't include seat changes for instance. I think the one here is better due to its simplicity. Number 57 22:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

But the appearance of the French one is so much better, in the code as well. --URunICon (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)