Talk:2014 Swedish general election

Left-wing/red-greens

In the polling data, where it reads "left-wing" for the sum of the support for S, MP and V, I've changed that back to "red-greens" which is what it said originally actually. My reasoning is that left-wing is a somewhat POV term, and the three parties identified are the three parties of the former Red Green alliance. I find that to be a more useful way to describe them, if we are going to cluster those parties together at all. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 22:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Statisitics Sweden Polls

Currently the polls on the page are just from Sifo or Demoskop. But here (http://www.thelocal.se/20131204/opposition-gains-fail-to-secure-majority-as-sweden-democrats-gain-and-moderates-drop-ahead-of-elections) they mention a polling organisation called "Statistics Sweden" which they claim to be more reliable -

"The semi-annual survey is considered to be one of the most rigourous of the myriad voter sympathy surveys carried out throughout the year, giving it added weight among political observers.

The results are based on responses from 9,000 telephone interviews carried out over the course of a month in which participants are asked which party they would vote for if an election were to be held in the coming days."

Even if it is only polled twice every year, considering they say that it is one of the more rigorous polling organisations would that not warrant inclusion in this article? Guyb123321 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Feminist Initiative

Why is the Feminist Initiative included in the info box, as they have no seats in parliament nor are any polls predicting them to gain any in the upcoming election? 109.149.39.79 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. If they're there then the Pirate Party should be there too! Hentheden (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

APO is not an individual opinion pollster

I noticed just now that polls from "APO" have been included in the table. However, APO is not an opinion pollster, it's just a website that calculates an average based on several polls. It's clear that all "APO polls" should removed. I've seen to that. The APO site can be found here: http://allsidigpolitik.weebly.com/ 83.254.201.106 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it's just an average of polls? Because they show the Social Democrats at 33% when no other poll places them above 31%. So I'm really curious which polls are they using to calculate the average, since it's impossible for a party obtaining around 29-31% in other polls to result in an average of 33%. Also, from the website you have just posted, I've found this: http://allsidigpolitik.weebly.com/opinioner-2014.html They treat APO as a separate pollster, aside from United Minds, Sifo, Novus, Ipsos and Demoskop. And this: http://allsidigpolitik.weebly.com/snittopinioner-2014.html Here is where they show an average of polls. But read carefully, and you will see that this is the average of APO, Demoskop, Ipsos, Novus, SIFO and United Minds polls. I'll await for your response, but I'm highly inclined to include APO since it looks like they are indeed separate polls. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The APO polls might as well be made up. There is no indication that the web site is run by any legitimate organization. There is no evidence that "Allsidig politik" is an organization. It appears to be private web site and as such not a WP:RS. I have removed the "polls" (scare quotes deliberate). Sjö (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing on the site http://allsidigpolitik.weebly.com about who runs it. From all appearances it seems to be a private web site: It's run on Weebly, a web hosting service that offers free web sites. A Google search on "Allsidig politik" yields zero hits for any organization with that name, only hits where the phrase is used in the meaning "comprehensive policy". There are no hits for any opinion pollster or similar called APO in the first five pages of a Google search.

There is no information about when, where or how any of Allsidig politik's polls was conducted like you can find in polls from established opinion pollsters. All of this suggests that the numbers are not reliable, and at the very least that the source Allsidig Politik isn't a reliable source. Also, the Allsidig politik polls are a new addition; they were added both here and at the Swedish Wikipedia a few days ago by Lecction (talk · contribs). Sjö (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Polling

The new table for polling data is great, but is displayed in a way that is out-of-touch with how polling data in Sweden (and in other countries with proportional election) is normally presented. Wikipedia should follow the convention of presenting the polling data with the parties organized by block, not by size. Also, the emphasis on which party is biggest is irrelevant when neither M or S will ever be able to form a government by themselves. The table should show the total for the government and red-green blocks, and the gap between the two, not the gap between the two largest parties. 213.112.61.61 (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fake party names

You can't use your own translations of party names because it's more convenient for a table. Either you find an official source for a translation, or you stick to the actual name. This is no different from titles of books or films. They're listed under acknowledged translations or under the original name. If you can't adapt the table format to fit the facts, fine, but then you'll have to stick to the Swedish names.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So that sources can be provided, Which party names are you claiming are original research? Number 57 23:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't need an official source for a translation in order to translate a political party name. And this is because political parties are not books or films. Books are films, in the first place, are, in many cases, intended to have an international impact, so in those cases translation is not always justified, and each country can very well use its own translation, or none at all. For a political party, with an impact limited to just the national stage, the fact of its name being translated for use in other languages is not really important. Party name translation is done for most parties in most countries (i.e. see how Greek, Japanese or Russian election articles use English and not the original languages), without it being a really serious issue. Impru20 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe this pretty much solves the issue. Proceeding to remove the OR tag. Impru20 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

All the names that aren't linked as well as Enhet, Skånepartiet and Liberala partiet (who are merely campaigning as Klassiskt liberala partiet so they wouldn't be confused with the Liberal People's Party). None of those appear to have any official English names, which is hardly surprising. There might be better label than OR for this, but it's the closest I could think of. If you don't make up your own names for Swedish books or films without English titles, why would you do it to parties?

Peter ^Isotalo 23:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Translations are always marked as translations, for example as "Unity" or "Animal party". What you're doing here is completely different. You can't refer to a policy exception about translations if you don't even mark a translation properly. Which begs the question where you got translations like "Path Choice" or "Human Democrats" from.

And please don't extend this edit war to trying to remove the tag as well. Take the complain seriously instead of making into "you're the only one complaining"-problem.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia clearly states that Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research, as per Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions. Furthermore, the English wikipedia itself encourages translation into English from other languages through guides, as well as lending support for it. Translating, as long as it is done faithfully, is not original research, so please stop adding the OR tag to the article. Impru20 (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Guys, please stop edit warring - you've both broken 3RR now. If Peter still insists on sources for translations, here's one for Classic Liberal Party and the Animal Party (from a list of Swedish parties contesting the last European elections). This news story is about the Christian Values Party, and these books discuss the Scania Party. But as Impru20 points out, translated party names is pretty standard. Number 57 23:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Impru20, you're crossing a line by removing the OR tag. Tags are supposed to be present to indicate there is disagreement. You don't remove those until you've actually settled an issue, especially not when you're a party in the dispute. The reference to the translation exception is not relevant. That section very clearly links to instructions on translation of entire articles, usually from other Wikipedias. That's obviously not what this is about. Translated quotes and the likes are always marked in some way.

Number 57, the links are valid for everything but the Christian Values Party. It's clearly marked as a translation, not an official name.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The only line being crossed here is you unilaterally undoing others' edits. There is no issue, as you are the only one saying that there is one. The reference to translation refers to Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. Then it adds a link to see specific translation when it comes to translating entire articles, but as you see, it puts no limit to translation as long as it is faithful. You are only using your opinion here. Both Number 57 and me have posted links on Wikipedia policy, on reference to parties having English names and on standard practice. Your opinion is respectable, but you cannot pretend it to be placed in an higher consideration than Wikipedia policy and standard practice. I'm not undoing your edit for now because of the 3RR (which you still insist on breaking, anyway), but what you are doing is not right. I ask for any other user to undo this edit, if possible. Impru20 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

About the Christian Values Party. And that's from the party's website itself. Impru20 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Impru20, I don't feel that you are taking this issue seriously. Wikipedia:Translation is about translation of Wikipedia articles between different language projects. I've been doing that myself since I first started editing back in 2005. It has nothing to do with presenting your own translations ("Path Choice") as the equivalent of widely recognized, or even official, translations (Christian Democrats).

If this is standard practice for political parties, I believe you have a problem, because it obviously comes in conflict with WP:OR and WP:V. And just don't start with the 3RR. It's one thing to revert article content, but extending it to tags with arguments this flimsy is not okay. I take the issue of translations very seriously, and I am no fan of of seeing Wikipedia as a distribution channel for dubious translations.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The main argument is based on Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions, not on Wikipedia:Translation, which you clearly seem to ignore. Wikipedia:Translation talks about articles, yes, but Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions talks about any sourced material. I used WP:Translation as an example of Wikipedia encouraging translation. Anyway, you could very well explain how to translate some words is, according to you, a violation of Wikipedia policy, while translating entire Wikipedia articles (which can very well include party names) is not. Because you recognize that Wikipedia allows for the translation of entire Wikipedia articles. And if you post the link to the specific article where it is stated that translation is not allowed, the better. Mostly because I did post you a link to the quote where it is said that it is allowed, if done faithfully. So let's sum it up:

1. Wikipedia states that Faithfully translating sourced material into English, (...) is not considered original research. You don't agree with it (despite being part of a Wikipedia policy), so let's go to 2.

2. To translate party names is a common practice not really contested. This is the English wikipedia, so it makes sense to show things in English here (if you want them in Swedish, there is the Swedish wikipedia). But you are not convinced by this, either, so let's go to 3.

3. There are links sourcing all Swedish parties with an English name. Including the Christian Values Party, which the party itself does in its website.

So this pretty much solves it, as at least one of these points would be enough to close the issue. I would please ask you to revert your edit on the OR tag. Impru20 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Something I would like to add. You say that And just don't start with the 3RR. It's one thing to revert article content, but extending it to tags with arguments this flimsy is not okay but it is actually irrelevant. There is that OR tag, yes, but I remind you that you added it alone, unilaterally and without consensus. Furthermore, you've been reverting others' edits on this issue as well, not only mine. So I'd ask you to also abide by the 3RR in order to avoid further edit warring wars. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you wilfully trying to keep tensions high? Adding dispute tags is not "unilateral" because you disagree with it. It's how we resolve disagreements. Work towards consensus instead of just slugging away at me.

Btw, you're hammering away your single-minded interpretation of WP:TRANSCRIPTION so hard that you're simply not taking anything in. Translations of other Wikipedia articles is one way to create content. No disagreement there. However, when we translate stuff like quotes, titles, official names and the likes ourselves, we do it in quotes. Because it's an interpretation that we make that potentially changes the meaning of something that is "fixed" in a completely different language than the one we're writing. Here are some examples:

• translation of film reviews in Let the Right One In (film)#Critical reception
• explanation of Japanese art terms in Ukiyo-e#Colour prints (mid-18th century)

There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). It clearly states that "[p]arties whose names are always kept in one language in a multilingual country also are commonly referred to by their native title in English" and "[when] a variety of translations are possible, use the translation that the party or organization itself uses should be used unless that translation differs from the majority of other English-language sources". And there's a cautionary issue in that "[p]arties whose name make no sense if translated into English should retain their native form".

Peter ^Isotalo 10:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is unilateral when you do it in the middle of a discussion and/or an edit warring, so that you can say that no one can remove the tag. You are obviously interested in having the tag in, so coming here and saying that "no one can remove a tag" that you yourself added without consulting the other people involved is not impartial. It is not that I don't like it, it is that you are pushing forward a personal opinion without a strong reasoning behind it. WP:TRANSCRIPTION talks about sourced material. But, once again, you ignore it and skip to your own interpretation. Now, you come refering to WP:NCPARTY, but you conveniently skip that it is applied to article titles. Yet, even if we consider that it isn't applied to just article titles, you still have to explain where is it stated that a faithful translation is original research. Because it was you who used an OR tag, yet you don't bring forward any argument explaining why faithful translations are OR. You still insist on explaining what is done to films and books when political parties are neither films or books. I put you the links to the different election articles using English for parties instead of their original languages:

• Greek legislative election, June 2012#Results
• Portuguese legislative election, 2011#Results
• Finnish parliamentary election, 2011#Results
• German federal election, 2013#Results
• South Korean legislative_election, 2012#Results
• Russian legislative election, 2011#Results
• Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013#Results
• Austrian legislative election, 2013#Results
• Hungarian_parliamentary_election, 2014#Results
• Japanese general election, 2012#Results
• Polish parliamentary_election, 2011#Results
• Swedish general election, 2010#Results
• French legislative_election, 2012#Results
• Danish general election, 2011#Results
• Romanian legislative election, 2012#Results

Just to post a few examples. In all of these English is used as the main name for parties. Alternatively, some of these also show the name in the original language, but always secondary to the main name shown in English (and not the other way round, as you did in your previous edits).

Futhermore, isn't it already stated that every Swedish party has a source for their English name? If that was the issue, then it is already solved, so I don't see why you insist on continuing this discussion. Impru20 (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You've brought up WP:TRANSCRIPTION multiple times now with the same arguments, but there's clearly a conflict between different policies and guidelines here. And, no, you haven't provided sources for the translations. For example, where does "Path Choice" and "Human Democrats" come from?

My original edits were to include both the Swedish and translated names. Why exactly did you reject these? Surely you're not refusing this merely because of the current formatting of the tables...

Peter ^Isotalo 18:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I brought up WP:TRANSCRIPTION in order to prove that translation is not OR. I did prove my facts, and you still have not brought up any source where it is stated that translation is OR (you only provided a link to WP:NCPARTY, which refers only to article titles, and not even states anywhere that faitful translations are OR). I asked you to please provide the source for it and you did not provide it. As long as you fail to do it, you can't say that there is conflict between different guidelines, because you are using guidelines that have nothing to do with OR. So get your own conclusion on this.

Your original edits just translated some names into English (not even all of them), and used Swedish as the main language. Since this is the English wikipedia, you would surely understand the fact that many people visiting this article may not understand Swedish. I have provided the links for plenty of election articles where either English is exclusively used, or used as the main language (with the corresponding party name in its native form being shown secondarily; maybe this could be a compromise solution for the issue?).

You also spoke of films and books; please state where it is said that political parties are the same thing that films or books. You won't see me compare political parties to, let's say, animals, in order to defend that they do use the same policy and can, thus, be translated.

And no, I'm not refusing this because of the formatting of the tables. But now that you point it out, I'd indeed like to highlight the fact that you did indeed revert the formatting a few times without explanation, clearly ignoring other users' work in getting a working formatting for the table.

Anyway, to conclude, as long as you don't provide a source that states that faithful translations are OR, we should conclude this discussion as per WP:DISENGAGE, because this is going nowhere. You have your clearly stated opinion that "you take language very seriously", which is respectable. However, an opinion which can't be defended with accurate facts, and must use examples not related to the issue in order for the discussion to continue, is pointless. I'm disengaging from this discussion, only leaving as a final note that, should you be unable to prove that translation is indeed OR (thus justifying the continued existence of the maintenance template), you should remove the OR tag. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could've both avoided this by simply fixing those minor glitches yourselves. Reverting everything outright was not particularly collaborative. Impru20, Number 57, you are both clearly familiar with these tables. I'm obviously not not. I'm very familiar with translation issues. You're obviously not. We should be able to find middle ground where both quality of both formatting and content can be accommodated.

My original edits specified translations of party names that to my knowledge had no official English names. You found English names for some of them, but I doubt you'll find it for all of them, like "Path Choice" (a fairly odd translation of "Vägval"). Do you consider it a problem if we provide the Swedish names for those parties that don't have English translations in any sources?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be so arrogant as to assume what other editors are familiar with; I've translated hundreds of articles from other language wikis, and also translate a good deal of the sources I use for writing referendum articles. I'm also familiar with standard practice, which as has been pointed out repeatedly during this discussion, is to translate party names. And it's not just Wikipedia that does this - the academic works I rely heavily on for writing election articles also translate party names in almost all cases.

But anyway, I agree that in some of the very awkward cases (perhaps like Vägval) the Swedish name may be appropriate, but if it's just "Health Party" or something, English should be used as usual. Number 57 22:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not about "the correct translation". That's like talking about "the correct POV". The "standard" you're arguing for here is the use English names out of pure editorial convenience.

English names of things (organization, books, ships, works of art, etc) that can't be attested in reliable sources should not be presented as "official" in any way. That Vänsterpartiet is best known as Left Party in English is indisputable, so there's no need to put quotes around it. This does not necessarily apply to parties that aren't even known outside Sweden, like Enhet or Djurägarpartiet (the latter is actually incorrectly translated here). That's why any translation of names, quotes, titles or the likes by Wikipedians should never be presented as equal to those of external sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, party names should be presented in Swedish, unless the party actually uses an English title aswell. This could then be translated aswell, but in that lies a POV hazard (unconsciously or intentional). Is the "Alliance"-label really needed ? This artcle is about an election as such, not about party politics. Or to put in in another way - the four parties in the Alliance certainly would like the label (even more so if they had gained a majority of seats). But in this article, I don't think that is our (Wikipedia) concern. Must we also have nine photos in the table ? Wouldn't Löfvén and Reinfeldt be sufficient ? A comparision - United Kingdom general election, 2010, dispite atleast 11 parties won constituencies and thereby seats in House of Commons (= MP's), only three party leaders are shown in picture. Boeing720 (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's a neutral representation. All media outlets in Sweden have referred to them as the "Alliance parties" for years. Virtually all opinion polls presented the difference between opposition and Alliansen. It's not just an ideological label like "conservative" or "socialist", but is actually based on a formal agreement. So we're not really making a judgement call here. There were even official ad campaigns that urged people to vote for Alliansen with all four parties represented side by side.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, the Alliance should be mentioned in the infobox. As for the portraits we don't have to have them but they look good and they add something to the article, so I think the should stay. Sjö (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's true. Media has used "the Alliance" ever since it was founded. But the likely outcome will be a minority S + MP government "red-green", should we add that in the infoboxes aswell. Not "red-green" but "in (new) government" ? Or that's an other subject, perhaps, reg. the infobox ? (just a thought) Boeing720 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The still-to-be-decided government composition obviously didn't direct influence on the election. The description "Red-green" (S+MP+V) seems entirely appropriate, though, since it was also part of the election coverage and reported in opinion polls.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be misleading since the Red-Greens (Sweden) once existed but was dissolved in 2010. Also, according to the definition in our article Political alliance the Red-greens didn't form an alliance. There was no agreement to cooperate before the election and there was no common political agenda.Sjö (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon... "No common political agenda" just isn't accurate. They had no formal agreement or a specified point-by-point common political platform, but there was an overt understanding that cooperation was extremely likely. The Red-Greens consistently avoided confrontation in the final political debates, for example. And when the results of polls were presented it was always accompanied by a summary of Red-Greens vs the Alliance with SD treated separately. The current "Poll results", with a presentation between the difference between M and S, seems to be modeled on a two-party system, like that in the US. It's not a presentation that is actually relevant to Swedish parliamentary politics.

I don't believe it's a good idea to determine the presentation of political realities by the terminology of our own infoboxes. Why not add "Red-Greens" without linking to the previous alliance and and add a caveat in a footnote?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a common point in debates and comments that the Red-greens did not have a common political platform, but the Alliance did. And we saw after the election that the differences in position were large enough that the Left Party didn't become part of the government, and it wasn't obvious that the Green Party would be either. There was no Red-green alliance in this election. As for the poll results and the reporting, the media have reported on the results for the blocs long before there was any Alliance or Red-Green alliance, so that doesn't prove anything. Sjö (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to "prove" stuff. I'm just saying that allowing formatting of infoboxes decide how to present information is really bad idea. And if you agree that media has reported "results for the blocs long before", it actually indicates that we ought to follow suit. Instead we seem to be discussing the strict definition of formal political alliances, as though this was the only thing that mattered for allegiances in Swedish party politics.

The point I was making about poll results, btw, was that the difference only between M and S has very little relevance.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about infoboxes, I'm saying that if there is a definition of "alliance" then that definition should be used consistently within Wikipedia. Sjö (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, this particular infobox happens to have the parameter "alliance", so we clearly are talking infoboxes. This doesn't match the reality of Swedish party politics, however. And this article is about Swedish politics, not elections in general, or even political alliances. And the cooperation among the left-wing opposition parties, even if it was tacit och informal, has been a major factor ever since the right-wing government came to power in 2006.

So why exactly is it a problem to present this in an infobox? Are there no other solutions than "no alliance, can't include"? For example, I've suggested adding an unlinked description with an explanatory note.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The reality of Swedish politics, as you put it, is that there is no alliance among the Red-greens. There isn't even cooperation, as evidenced by the fact that the Left party isn't in government and has taken a hard-nosed stand against the S-MP government on several issues. I strongly oppose any attempt to include a text that gives an impression of an alliance or anything similar. Sjö (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

As you probably noticed, I fully protected the page and then decided to revert back to semi-protection. I did this based on the high traffic of the page, and potential for information needing change. However, I am doing so with the following disclaimer: I have warned those users who have been edit warring on this page. If any further edits are reverted by the same parties (other than obvious vandalism or things of that nature) they may be blocked from editing.

Please use this talk page to talk about disputes. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polling table issue

Since Peter Isotalo has proposed changes to the opinion polling table, I suggest the issue to be discussed here before any change is made to the table.

Peter has pointed out both on through his recent contributions to this article, as well as more specifically on my talk page, his intention to discuss this. Maybe Number 57 would want to participate in this discussion as well, since Peter has named him on my talk on relation with this issue. Before anything, I'd like to point out that I take other users' contributions very seriously, which is the reason I'm opening this discussion here to discuss any changes (if any) that are to be made to the table.

So, let's go to the matter in question. Peter has proposed a new formatting for the opinion polling table (which is available through the article's history), on the grounds that "current scrollable solution for really long tables of opinion poll stats isn't exactly ideal from a readability standpoint". My opinion on this point is against change, on the grounds that the current model is functional, is not really an obstacle to readability, and that adding party headings all through the table really does not solve any problem (since you would still have to scroll the table all the way to the place where the party headings are placed) and would just be a repetition of information for no need. That is my opinion, but it can be discussed.

However, Peter has refered to my first reverting of his change as "reverting clarifications with the motivation "is not necessary" [1] isn't constructive". First, I would like to point out that I said more than just "is not necessary". Secondly, this is a change made to an established standard (in this case, mine) for opinion polling tables. Of course, you are right when you say that I "have got your established formatting standard", but I would like to contest your affirmation that I "don't seem particularly interested in discussing the merits of any changes." You can't defend that when you are just putting forward your change without discussing them in the talk.

At the moment I first reverted your edit, you should have noticed that your change to an established formatting standard, which has not been contested by anyone before, is disputed, and that it should be discussed, in order to reach a consensus. It is not impossible to change it; of course, if a table formatting which actually does improves the current one can be found, I'd gladly accept it. But it should be done through discussion if there's a conflict. However, despite talking about discussion, you are just pressing forward your changes without dicussing them with anyone, as if we had to accept your proposed change outright and the discussion being about whether to revert it. You already did this before on the issue of party names. That is why I have, this time, reverted your change, and brought here this issue. I please ask you not to press forward your change again before discussing it here and before consensus is reached. As it is a new change, the original formatting should be maintained before any decision is taken. So, let's open the discussion. Impru20 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A table with 8 columns with a very limited scroll range is hard to read. You have to memorize the order of the individual parties, then scroll down and check the figure. If you lose track of the column order, you have to scroll all the way up again and then all the way down again. Unless you also memorize all the figures.

The normal course of action for edits that don't botch or drastically alter content is to offer compromises, not revert and demand that consensus be reached before anything can be changed. There is obviously no harm in slightly different table formats in different election articles. So why do I need your permission before proceding with minor stuff like this? Which reader groups are you looking out for?

Peter ^Isotalo 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it is that difficult to read the table. The current formatting was actually made to be the most user-friendly to read as possible, and I actually find it quite easy. How much does it take to scroll up all the way from the bottom of the table? 2 secs?Furthermore, with your proposal, you would still have to scroll down and check the figure, so the change does not solves anything in itself (the only it does is repeating information and making the table to look weird).

The normal course of action is to offer compromises in the event of a major dispute (with several people involved) that has got bogged down. What you did here was to make a change of the table formatting without discussion, then reverted a justified revert on your edit, all of that without even caring to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, then issuing a comment on my talk about my "lack of interest in discussing". What you are doing now is forcing me to offer a compromise without even discussing the issue. Furthermore, a compromise does not mean accepting your changes as they are either, but rather, to propose a middle solution between both our proposals (something you, as of now, have not tried to accomplish). First, there should be consensus on whether one option or the other is the best, and then, if the discussion gets bogged down or there is a better proposal, is the time to offer an alternative compromise that is able to reach consensus. That is the correct course of action, and not what you are doing here.

Also, I did not say you need my permission. What I said is that you have accused me of not seeming "particularly interested in discussing the merits of any changes". You not even asked me, so how can you know whether I'm interested in discussing any change or not? You of course don't need to ask me if you want to modify the table (since I do not own anything of it), but you should if, later, you want to use as an argument that I am not interested in discussing any change.

In any case, I'm willing to find a common compromise between both of us for a new table format if more people complain about the current one being a problem to readability. This current format has been used in, and even copied to, many opinion polling articles with no issue on the matter arising until now. Changing it (unless the change is an obvious improvement), even if it is just in this article alone, just because one person votes out for it, is not the best solution. Impru20 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Except you're the only one reverting. Mind the ownership.

The issue here is the limited scrolling area. It prevents you from a a full overview over a fairly large table. That's a problem when there are more than 3-4 columns. Either the scrolling should be removed or the columns should be marked throughout with colors or something. The ordering doesn't help either. Ranking the parties by percentage of votes from the 2010 election doesn't have any relevance for a multiparty system dominated by political blocks.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Except you are the one making changes without consensus and accusing others of not discussing (when you have not even cared to open a discussion in the talk page about it). Mind you that it was me who opened this discussion on the talk despite being you the one wanting the change, and, in theory, the first one interested in discussing the issue. And about ownership, mind that I just told you, literally, that I do not own anything of it (please, care to read that specific paragraph, mind you?), nor did I say that you should request my permission or something like that. What I'm pointing out is that the current table formatting is one that has caused very little (if any) problems, and is one that most people here seem to feel comfortable with (the very scarce attempts to modify it should prove that). That's why I asked for a larger consensus in order to proceed with any change, unless that change was an obvious improvement (which is not the case here).

The issue of a full overview over fairly large tables is problematic, because removing the scrolling area makes the table to occupy a lot of space in the article (and it may cause problems with other users complaining about it; I already had this discussion in the past). So, removing the scrolling is not really an option unless there is a fairly large consensus on it. Furthermore, even without the scrolling you can't have a full overview over the table as you say, because of its length: you'd still need to scroll down the article. The columns can't be marked with colors either, because colors are reserved for the leading party (as well as the issue arising from parties using the similar colors).

Also, I don't understand when you say that "ranking the parties by percentage of votes from the 2010 election doesn't have any relevance for a multiparty system dominated by political blocks". Which order do you propose instead? What are you refering to here? Please elaborate. Impru20 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Impru20. I think the current table is compact and readable. To whether it should be scrollable or not, there's so many polls it should be either moved to a separate article or kept scrollable. Otherwise it would take up too much space. --4idaho (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To the subject of political blocs, maybe there could be separate columns showing the 'red' and 'blue' blocs, like in the Opinion polling for the next Danish general election article? --4idaho (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Having been asked to contribute here, I actually think the extra heading lines are useful - it is a long way to scroll and remember which column is for which party. It would also help if the repeater rows repeated the party colours too, rather than just the party initials.

Peter, in response to your comments on Impru's talk page, I am taking you seriously, but there is a major issue with election articles for a small number of countries suffering from some pretty bad WP:OWN problems – specifically editors who only edit election articles for their own country, and insist that their personal style is best and refuse to allow the articles to be standardised. This is very frustrating for the small number of us who edit across all election articles and are trying to bring some form of consistency. I am not accusing you of this problem, but just letting you know why your attempts to do something non-standard here have been met with scepticism (although your dismissal of the normal procedure regarding party names didn't really help get things off on the right foot). Number 57 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Solved issue in a way I believe will satisfy all. The scrolling area is necessary for avoiding the article to become too long, but there is nothing preventing the party heading lines from being outside that area. This way you can scroll down the entire table while being able to keep track of every party's column the entire time. It is also nice to the eye, and does not require to repeat the rows once and once again. What do you think, Peter Isotalo, 4idaho, Number 57? Impru20 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent solution. Good work! Number 57 14:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swedish general election, 2014. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120200113/http://www.vansterpartiet.se/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3724%3Ade-ska-leda-vaensterpartiet&catid=322%3Arigt&Itemid=800 to http://www.vansterpartiet.se/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3724%3Ade-ska-leda-vaensterpartiet&catid=322%3Arigt&Itemid=800

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)