Talk:2008 Austrian legislative election

To the anonymous IP

It's not the shortest cabinet; 1970–1971 and 1994–1995 both were shorter. —Nightstallion 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Posters

So, could you explain what exactly is supposed to be the problem? They're clearly essential content of this article, and I don't see how the presentation matters in this. I've changed the presentation to a more inline version for now, but I think it was much more sensible the way it was before, and would like to change it back to that unless you've got very good arguments why we shouldn't. —Nightstallion 11:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not clearly essential to the article by any means. Right now, we seem to have a gallery of non-free images- worst of all, they seem to have been put together with the "this is one of the adverts- QUICK, PUT IT IN THE ARTICLE!" philosophy. Galleries should not be used- if a poster is explicitly discussed (preferably with its appearance discussed) then a single image of it, inline, would not be too bad. Right now, the images just seem to be there on the assumption that because they're related to the article, they should be in. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have cut it down to one poster for each party. There does not seem to be any need for more unless the posters themselves receive significantly more coverage. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see in the article. all the logos and posters that Nightallion inserted in the article and that were later cancelled. I don't understand J Milburn's concerns and I strongly support the previous version of the article by Nightstallion, including all the logos and the gallery of posters: they are appropriate in the article and they improve it by far. --Checco (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No they're not, they're decorative and there are far too many of them. They are not strictly needed, so they should not be included. Please see the non-free content criteria and our guidelines on non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree. To fully understand the election campaign, one needs to have all the posters. —Nightstallion 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I too vehemently disagree. To fully understand the election campaign, one needs to have all the posters and logos of the parties. We like to have articles the more complete we can. --Checco (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I still think that this version was the best. Can we return to that? And, in particular, can we include again the party logos? --Checco (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, forget the logos, as anyone with a basic grasp of the non-free content criteria can see that they are absolutely, 100% not needed. Sure, they're pretty, but that counts for nothing- we're not StealprettyimagesofftheInternetopedia. We can have a reasonable discussion about the election posters - why do people believe they should be kept? J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that having all the election posters in the article is essential to understanding how the different parties approached different topics in the campaign and how they presented their positions. —Nightstallion 15:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the posters are basically the same. Take the FPÖ posters- what do any of them show that "the big one" doesn't? The big one shows how they are presenting themselves (colours, photos, symbols, styles) and the others seem to be just variations on different issues- the issues the cover and their stance on them can be discussed in the text- a non-free image is not needed. If not strictly needed, then it should not be used. Again with the ÖVP- without reading what they say, the posters actually look the same. The issues and what they say can be discussed in the text, the image is just needed to demonstrate how they are presenting themselves. The SPÖ are both red with similar designs (slightly different pictures, but they're of the same bloke) and so the same argument stands- one is needed to show how the party presents itself, and the stances/campaign points can be discussed in the text. To me, this is a textbook case of a NFCC point 3A violation- multiple non-free images are being used when one will suffice. J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Again for the newly added Green posters- they all show the same person, same design, same insignias... only the words change, and they can be easily quoted in the article. I'm really not seeing why they are all needed, at all. J Milburn (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that view; in my opinion, one needs to see all the posters to have a comprehensive view of the election campaign. —Nightstallion 20:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why, when they're so similar? What does showing five posters that are basically the same but with different slogans achieve that showing one poster and writing the four other slogans doesn't? J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on now. We all know how sparsely used fair use images have to be in order to claim to be a "free content" encyclopedia. Putting so many of these images into the article adds no value to it - if anything, it makes the article look ugly. I disagree with the comprehensiveness the images offer - the information is in the text. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If I can be honest, we can use some of the posters in the article. However, we should do it in a way where only 1 poster from each party is used, no more, no less. Also, to comply with fair use rules, we also need to reduce the actual image by at least half. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images should be used sparsely, not liberally. They're non-free; although there is no official limit, they're only to be used when they add significant content per the non-free content criteria. These do not; there are simply too many of them, and they do not add understanding or historical significance to the article. I support their removal. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's the number that's the problem, how about putting the different images into a single one so that all different posters of one party can be seen in one image? —Nightstallion 11:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Collages don't work very well, plus, the images you have now are too large for our purposes. So we need to just have one poster and one only. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't collages work too well? If it's a matter of the number of the images, then that seems to be a good compromise solution, no? We can of course reduce the resolution, as well. —Nightstallion 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A collage does not reduce the number of images- that's Wikilawyering. The same number of images are in use whether they happen to be the same file or not. Furthermore, as has already been said many times, the images are so similar that repeating them adds little to the article anyway- certainly nothing that showing one poster but listing the slogans wouldn't. J Milburn (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, the consensus is clear, why are we stalling? Please remove these images from article. You picked fault with my removal last time, so please do it yourself. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

sighs Fair enough. I'll put external links to the election posters next to their decriptions, then, that should be fine, right? —Nightstallion 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is on some sort of official site, that probably shouldn't be a problem. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They're all from the official party homepages, so that shouldn't be a problem. —Nightstallion 12:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything Nightstallion said. I strongly think that having all party logos (where are they gone?) and posters in the article is essential for two reasons: 1) to understand how the campaign is going; 2) to have a complete article. Positions like that of J Milbrun severely damage en.Wiki: I hoped to see such things only in it.Wiki... sighs --Checco (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear.--Free Socialist 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Size of the images

As some of you have stated that the resolution of the images is too large in order for fair use to apply, I'd ask you to tell me which is the maximum allowable resolution which is still allowed under FU. Thanks. —Nightstallion 16:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no maximum allowable size- they need to be as big as they need to be, and no bigger. Preferably, they need to be significantly smaller than the original. Editorial judgement is required. I'd just keep reducing them until the text is just readable (and I'd crop the Green one). Finally, the images are going to need copyright tags. I'm kinda surprised you're so unfamiliar with this stuff- I know I'd come down hard on any editor I saw doing this. J Milburn (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think all but the one of the Greens should be okay, then (as they all have smaller text which would be unreadable at lower resolution). I'll reduce that one to lower resolution. —Nightstallion 21:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So what?

So, why can't we include in the article the logos of the parties and more posters? --Checco (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Citizens' Forum Austria

Has this new movement declared which of the main parties they would be willing coalition allies? --Free Socialist 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No to ÖVP under Schüssel and highly critical of FPÖ and BZÖ. —Nightstallion 14:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox size

The infobox in the top left hand corner is far too large - on 800x600 resolution screens the introduction text is squeezed to two or three words per line. Can this not be made narrower? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue that 800x600 is not really something we should support any more, but I don't really see how we can make it much smaller... —Nightstallion 08:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the picture size by a third, that should be enough. —Nightstallion 12:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Size of the article

This article is far to long. It is way way to long. I have the distinct impression someone has written an essay as part of their degree and just pasted it all in here - don't get me wrong, it is actually quite good and the english is good as well which is quite refreshing for a german speaking topic :) - but for wikipedia this is too long, seriously. This is just one snap election in austria - this page is even longer than that of the US presidential election. It is also considerably longer than the german version of the 'same' content. In fact it bares little resemblance to it. --Lexxus2010 (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I know it's too long, I'll have to split out some parts when it's over. However, I can assure you it's not part of my degree (I'm a mathematician, not a political scientist or journalist), I just thought that I might as well try to make this a very well-documented election. Where's the problem in being longer than the US presidential election? Just because it's an Austrian election doesn't mean it's less important... ;) And it's longer than the German version because I don't work on the German WP, I prefer the English one. —Nightstallion 09:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nightstallion has done an excellent job on this page. Although it's long the page is well documented and the table of contents is clear and accessible. I vote the page stays as is. Pould (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think there may be some parts which are not strictly necessary on this page (one could perhaps split the party information to the respective party articles), but altogether my intent was to chronicle *everything* about this election. ;) —Nightstallion 15:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point was that the official US presidential election campaign will have lasted 21 months by the time it is over, has been eventful, and has captured the world's attention. The fact is, this article has too much information about the individual parties (I an at a loss as to why we need explanations of each campaign poster released by each party), the party position questionnaire seem totally unnecessary and are certainly not informative enough to justify the inclusion of more than one, and there are too many ancillary opinion polls (i.e., coalition preference and chancellor preference). In addition to these specifics, it seems the prose can be edited down without losing meaning. Finally, there are some things left out. For instance, the coalition and chancellor polls should include a translation of Koalitionsfrage and Kanzlerfrage or, use the English and not the German. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, so I really don't see how it's a bad thing that everything there is to know about the election is in this article. Yeah, you're right, parts of it should probably be split into sub-articles, and the prose can certainly be improved upon, but apart from that, I disagree. —Nightstallion 13:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble believing that you seriously considered my comments. After all, I cannot see how you could disagree with translating "Koalitionsfrage" and "Kanzlerfrage". There are a number of reasons for keeping articles at a reasonable length. The biggest one is that an article this long is likely to bury the truly important information in a sea of unimportant information. Having a chart comparing party answers to more than twenty questions is over the top. Having three such charts is silly. This is especially true since there are lengthy discussions of the issues. The need for a list of every poster that every party published is beyond me. Having both those lists and the images is incomprehensible. All in all, there seems to be a misunderstanding of an encyclopedia article. This is not supposed to be a complete record everything that happened during the election, but rather a summary of the important, notable events and participants. The loss of focus is evident in a number of these things, but also in the placement of the results and the lack of updates to the lead. The results, being among the most important aspects of the encyclopedia should be near the top. The lead still refers to expectations. Your response to an earlier editor, and responses elsewhere on this page, show you are dangerously close feeling a sense of owning this article. Rather than making vague references to possibly forking the article in the future, I think you should take a step back and think about whether some of this stuff is really notable and then actually discuss what you think should be forked. -Rrius (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The translations I did not disagree with, as you can clearly see.

I still disagree with your basic take -- Wikipedia is not paper, so why shouldn't this article (or this article and a set of sub-articles) contain everything notable there is to know about this election? I think you see the issue only from the viewpoint of an external observer, who may be less interested in the details of the event than someone actually involved in the effects of this election. Subsequent analysis is greatly aided by having the whole campaign and all there is to know about the election available.

I neither deny that the article is far too long, nor do I claim to own the article. I do think, however, that everything on this page is notable in some way (if not as content of the main article, than as Election posters in the Austrian legislative election, 2008 or Party positions in the Austrian legislative election, 2008, to mention both the charts and the election posters) and that it's easier to sort it out now or in a few days or weeks than it would have been not to have the info in the article right away and prune and fork later on. —Nightstallion 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)Election articles for elections around the world have information such as polling in separate articles long before the election. Since there is a link, there is no reason not to pull the information out. As to the point about post-election analysis being aided by having that much information, I basically disagree, but mostly feel it is irrelevant. The article is not here as an aid to political scientists analyzing the elections, it is supposed to be a summary of the important happenings of the elections. The third-wave election poster of the SPO is not in any way important or notable. Your point about WP not being paper misses the point completely. Just as arguments about print works being too long are not about the excessive use of paper, this is not about running out of ones and zeros. Rather, it is about the inappropriateness of an article of this length to its purpose. The article is less intelligible and less approachable for being as long as it is. I am not just "seeing the issue only from the viewpoint of an external observer, who may be less interested in the details of the event than someone actually involved in the effects of this election." I would be just as against an article in my jurisdiction or any of the jurisdictions I regularly watch being as caught up in minutiae as this one. Moreover, the point is that I am coming to this as a reader. I want to find some information, but not read every gory detail. Even if it were appropriate to be as in depth as you have made this article, the thing is so poorly organized that a reader cannot find the parts he or she wants. For the largest parties you have very long paragraphs. Those should be broken down into more paragraphs and subsections. -Rrius (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is excellent: instead of proposing to shorten it, I would like to see all the articles about elections in en.Wiki like this! Moreover I would like people not to forget that this is a Wikipedia in English not an English Wikipedia... --Checco (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If all election articles were like this, they would not be too useful. The fact is, very little pre-election information is helpful in analyzing an election. You need to know what the main factors were in driving the vote, but the important part is what happened, who voted which way, and what happened as a result. The large nationalist share was important here. So is how it translates into a coalition. It doesn't take several sections and 90ish questions to figure out why people voted for the nationalists. When this was an ongoing election it was arguable that some of this was notable, but it is now a past election, and many of the details are not notable anymore. -Rrius (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And that's where we disagree. Just because many people may not be interested in some of the details they are not any less notable. All of the issues treated in the article were treated at length in Austrian newspapers, magazines, TV and radio. —Nightstallion 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First, how many people would care does get at what notability is. Second, the media reports would have summarized the party positions and ad campaigns. They would not have treated the full lists of questions and answers and ads "at length". Summary is exactly what I am calling for. In fact, issue discussions do summarize those extensive lists, making them superfluous. As such, they should be cut. In addition, the exact state-by-state ballot positions are not notable. The idea that ballot positions were different is, but the line-ups are not. This is especially so since the parties that won seats did have the same position in each state. -Rrius (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I don't dispute that many parts of the article are clear targets for forking. As you seem to have a pretty good idea of what to target (and as I'm not that good at summarising), want to give it a try? The only thing I'd ask for is not to delete too extensive sections, but to fork them into subarticles first and then summarise them in this article. Thanks for your help! —Nightstallion 07:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've separated everything I intend to. I put the issue questionnaire and campaign posters in separate articles. Because of its nature, the questionnaire stuff is hard to summarize, so I'm not going to try. The posters stuff could, I suppose, be summarized, but I'm not going to make it a high priority. The article is more manageable now, but eventually I'll take a crack at the meat of the text. -Rrius (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. As I've said, the only request I have is that no content be deleted, if possible. —Nightstallion 09:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully a compromise has now finally been reached between both Nightstallion and Rrius. I haven't look at this page in a few weeks and now that I have seen the changes I am quite surprised. The article is VERY good in terms of its depth of analysis. However... it has become even longer now and its getting ridiculously large with nearly 500 references and over 19,000 words spread over 22 pages. Size is of course relative, on the one hand compared to the overall Wikipedia format, and on the other compared to other Austrian election articles. So for example, all the previous Austrian election articles are barely more than two pages in length. In comparison this article's length is greater than all previous elections combined.

May I briefly note without having to go into any of the details, that this election is actually not a particularly important one - the election results have led to the same formation as the previous coalition - the government has not changed, only some ministers have swapped chairs. To therefore then deliberate at this length over a 'snap election' that ended with this same results seems wholly unnecessary. - But this is of course a question of subjective judgment and I truly acknowledge the efforts put in by Nightstallion on writing so much. However I still think there should be a shorter version of this article, perhaps one that is three of four pages long (that's twice the length of all other elections) which then includes many additional links to expand on the topic. Forking - I know you don't like the idea of deletion (I don't want to remove any of it either, as it is good stuff.) Therefore breaking the article up into sub articles makes sense - Because right now, this page is only legible for the few people that have been writing in this discussion page and I can't possibly imagine that anyone else has actually read the whole thing nor that anyone will ever read it. Especially as the only people that are really keen on reading so much about a medium/minor election are probably going to be German speakers, that will, guess what, read the German version. Which is of course a shame - so in order to help make this article more digestible (and therefore accessible for those that don't want to read a book on this topic, after all this is an encyclopedia) it really should be split up into at least four or five different articles as outlined by Rrius and the 'main page' should be kept very simple, straight forward and down to earth. This is one of the classical difficulties that people often have in writing articles, they write too much - writing within a limited number of words is usually very hard, but nevertheless necessary.--Lexxus2010 (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is way, way, way too long. It is currently one of the top 10 longest articles in English Wikipedia. There's no good reason for this (some of the other articles have good reasons, e.g., they're lists). It needs to be broken up. I'll add a {{toolong}} tag. Eubulides (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing Dates

I keep editing the dates in the polls tables so that there is some consistency in the date format (for example, changing 10th September 2008 to 2008-09-10). While I appreciate the attempt to fix the column width by using the text form of the date, why is this necessary?

Pould (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mh. Well, technically, autoformatting dates are no longer prescribed by the MoS... Either way, I'll do it by prescribing a column width instead, let's see whether it works. —Nightstallion 15:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't get it to work in the Kanzlerfrage table... —Nightstallion 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Green Party

Why is the Green Party always listed third in order (i.e. pictures of Party leaders, discussion of platforms) when they finished fifth and all other parties are listed in order or results? LCpl (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They were initially listed in order of the last election, but I can see why listing them in the order of this election is more sensible. —Nightstallion 17:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidates elected

The Interior Ministry website doesn't seem to have a list of candidates who were elected. Can anyone point me to such a list? (The Nationalrat website has a list of current members, but that has changed since 2008.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Split?

Split - Split "Candidates", "Opinion Polling" and "Parties" out due to length.--Jax 0677 (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Austrian legislative election, 2008. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120227134840/http://kurier.at/nachrichten/193968.php to http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/193968.php

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081001230727/http://www.bmi.gv.at/Wahlen/wahldownloads/NRW_06/NRW_06_Ergebnisse_1945.pdf to http://www.bmi.gv.at/Wahlen/wahldownloads/NRW_06/NRW_06_Ergebnisse_1945.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Austrian legislative election, 2008. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080714053818/http://www.kurier.at:80/nachrichten/173656.php to http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/173656.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120216154506/http://kurier.at/nachrichten/176467.php to http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/176467.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120216154524/http://kurier.at/nachrichten/175578.php to http://kurier.at/nachrichten/175578.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120227134948/http://kurier.at/nachrichten/266407.php to http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/266407.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120227134954/http://kurier.at/nachrichten/270005.php to http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/270005.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Austrian legislative election, 2008. 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/20081205040453/http://www.heide-schmidt-blog.at/2008/10/wir-bitten-um-geduld/ to http://www.heide-schmidt-blog.at/2008/10/wir-bitten-um-geduld/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029052603/http://www.heide-schmidt-blog.at/2008/10/engagement-mut-zivilcourage-kann-ansteckend-sein/ to http://www.heide-schmidt-blog.at/2008/10/engagement-mut-zivilcourage-kann-ansteckend-sein/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120003109/http://cnn.com./2008/WORLD/europe/10/11/austria.haider/index.html to http://cnn.com./2008/WORLD/europe/10/11/austria.haider/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222042304/http://kurier.at/nachrichten/285647.php to http://kurier.at/nachrichten/285647.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Austrian legislative election, 2008. 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/20101225214841/http://www.datum.at/7808/stories/5137794/ to http://www.datum.at/7808/stories/5137794
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1224256176018
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://diepresse.com/home/politik/innenpolitik/425905/index.do?_vl_backlink=%2Fhome%2Findex.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016011534/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnhrKIkZtbp1GqyfoqTMsmwoh1WA to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jnhrKIkZtbp1GqyfoqTMsmwoh1WA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1220460556791
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004032516/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h8azmiDbCr5fg3hXz9Y8ELk8O6Ew to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h8azmiDbCr5fg3hXz9Y8ELk8O6Ew
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1220460557080
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1220460596714
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1224256239253
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1220460557934
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1224256087345
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1224256197929
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1234508764447
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601214520/http://www.kleinezeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/1930474/index.do to http://www.kleinezeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/1930474/index.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://derstandard.at/?url=%2F%3Fid%3D1220460241006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910011927/http://wahl08.orf.at/ to http://wahl08.orf.at/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fm4.orf.at/wahl08
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601211953/http://www.wilhelmmolterer.at/ to http://www.wilhelmmolterer.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420133423/http://www.diechristen.at/ to http://www.diechristen.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120429195344/http://linkewaehlen.at/ to http://linkewaehlen.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603062129/http://gestaltungfmenschen.com/ to http://www.gestaltungfmenschen.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212193315/http://www.wirpartei.at/ to http://www.wirpartei.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213163127/http://www.plattform-direkt.at/ to http://www.plattform-direkt.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227030441/http://www.dwoe.at/ to http://www.dwoe.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112114309/http://ichwaehlenicht.at/ to http://www.ichwaehlenicht.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617155717/http://saupartei.at/ to http://saupartei.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617024258/http://partei3.net/ to http://partei3.net/

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) 01:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Austrian legislative election, 2008. 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/20080910041856/http://linkewaehlen.at/node/153 to http://linkewaehlen.at/node/153
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318010028/http://www.datum.at/0908/stories/5168780 to http://www.datum.at/0908/stories/5168780/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128204623/http://www.heide-schmidt-blog.at/ to http://www.heide-schmidt-blog.at/

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) 06:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)