Talk:2017 German federal election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox election template too wide

'Infobox election' template is too wide for small screens. I've started a discussion on the template's talkpage at Template talk:Infobox election#Template too wide for small screens.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Underlining / Clear headings

The last couple of days there has been a small edit war between User:Mélencron and User:Le Partisan regarding formatting for headings in the list of candidates, specifically whether the headings should be underlined. It is true that we don't usually use underlining on Wikipedia, but it's also true that the heading are a bit hard to see/understand. There are too many headings and they are not different enough in size to see the difference clearly. So, if we can't use underlining on wikipedia, does anyone have any other ideas? Jdcooper (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually rather unsure if there ought to be names of "candidates" even listed on this article. This essentially being a parliamentary election, it's more a contest between parties than it is between candidates; indeed, while other parliamentary election articles on Wikipedia make note of parties, none appears to refer to party leaders, and nor did the article on the 2013 federal election. Mélencron (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's this: German_federal_election,_2013#Chancellor-candidates. Maybe, instead of the list we have currently, the same explanation could be used on this article, just re-worded to refer to this election? It certainly seems that we don't have to exhaustively list the possible lead candidates for smaller parties. Jdcooper (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I too am of the opinion that the list is unnecessary. The Chancellor candidate could be something to replace it with, but for now I think we should just delete it. Number 57 06:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE the Graphical summary

it has not been updated since august. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesrick95 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And surely in the second box it would make more sense to order parties left-right? That is, AFD, CDU/CSU, FDP, SPD, Greens, Left 195.194.75.226 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely uninformative article!

Hello. I would like to direct a complaint to the editors here. On the German article there is a clear and open list of all the parties involved while the English page includes only the major parties. Not mention of any minor party strength, event or scandal is included. The article is absolutely tiny considering it is about a huge European nation having a crucial election. It's not just that the main parties have prominence, it is that the smaller parties aren't even mentioned so unless browsing a separate article called "Parties in Germany" you wouldn't even know which other alternatives exist. This is quite bad IMO. 83.254.83.6 (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's written by people like you! It's great that you are passionate about the quality of this article, but there the editors to whom you refer are just whoever has the skills, knowledge, time and energy to contribute to making Wikipedia what it is. Orthorhombic, 20:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Forecast results

@TheGoldenRule: Please stop adding a forecast of the results to the infobox. There are different forecasts floating around, some with 690 seats and others with 695. We should not be misleading readers into thinking one of them is a definitive result. Just wait till the result is confirmed. Number 57 23:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The actual counts are close to the end result. No way. You are withholding information from the wikipedia!

--TheGoldenRule (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheGoldenRule: Ok, I'm going to bed now but have reported this at WP:ANI. Please reconsider this in yhe meantime. Number 57 23:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

okay, I am not gonna revert it again. --TheGoldenRule (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Who to include in infobox

Who should be included in the infobox? Prior to the election, most countries show only those parties / leaders who are represented in Parliament. The FDP didn't make it in 2013, and the AfD narrowly missed being represented at their first attempt. Should they be shown, or excluded for the time being? Schwede66 19:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The CDU/CSU, SPD, DIE LINKE, GRÜNE, FDP, AfD, FREIE WÄHLER, BGE, Die PARTEI, and MLPD have lists in all 16 states. Of these, only the first six are significantly represented at the state level and therefore merit inclusion – in any case, they're always the six parties regularly tested by the polling institutes. Mélencron (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

44

If it were about "significant representation at the state level", this would definitely include the Freien Wähler. However, they were not likely, and did not in fact, enter the Bundestag.--2001:A61:2022:9401:8438:E089:CCCE:1645 (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

List of individuals elected

Apologies if I've missed it, but is there a page for this? The recent French election had one and I'd like to help out with creating missing biographies. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

EXPLANATION FOR LARGE NUMBER OF EXTRA SEATS

The reason for the hight number of seats is definitly NOT the strong first vote performance of the Union

SPD outperform by 4% - CDU only by 3%

The true reason for the hight number of seats is that:

1. The fist party is far away from 50%

2. The second party is far away from the first

In particular lets look at the state which decide the number of seats in this election:Bavaria

Result: 39 % CSU 15% other <15 % - CSU won all constituencies on first AND second vote - therefore they get 50% of Bavaria's seats.--188.22.253.96 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It is obviously not a result of "great first vote performance" to win all of Bavarian seats. Not that easy calculation showa that Bavaria is clearly the decisive factor for the number of seats. --188.22.253.96 (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Results table

I don't see the need to shrink the text or have a heading on the table. The reason some other German election articles have it is because they are using the awful {{electiontable}} template, which does it automatically. Those templates should in most cases not actually exist as templates are not meant to be used when there is only one transclusion. I'll work on that over the next few days, which will hopefully deal with the issue of consistency. Number 57 11:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove "not"

In the first line it should say "The new Bundestag will in turn..." not "The new Bundestag will not in turn..."

Collideascope (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017

Please link the party for health research (Healthresearch in the table) to its wikipedia page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Partei_f%C3%BCr_Gesundheitsforschung Tim280716 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Registered voters

The registered voters figure in the infobox seems incorrect, it is just the same figure as the turnout (and significantly lower than the registered voter number in 2013). Is the correct number anywhere in the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: I've fixed it. The figure was in the results table. Number 57 10:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

SPD considers Black-red-green coalition

Sharouser (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Merkel

@James GBEng: Vorpommern-Rügen isn't an federal state. For all candidates are federal states, but at Merkel is the Landkreis Vorpommern-Rügen --Phillipm0703 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Phillipm0703: This is how the German electoral system works. Merkel was directly-elected in a constituency (which is why her seat is shown as Vorpommern-Rügen – Vorpommern-Greifswald I), whereas the other leaders did not ran in individual constituencies but in regional lists. It is not that it is the federal state that must be shown for all, but the constituencies for which they got elected. Impru20^talk 13:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok i'm from germany and i don't know that. --Phillipm0703 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

confusion danger

A busy reader, like me, may confuse the results of 2013, listed first and badly marked, with the correct ones below, from 2017. Greetings from Germany --Legorepublik (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

More suitable infobox?

At the bottom of the current infobox, it says "Elected chancellor". While correct, this can misleadingly give the impression that Merkel was elected chancellor *in this election*. She was, of course, elected by parliament (Bundestag) months later. I think it would be better to use the infobox for legislative elections, which avoids this wording. See for instance Dutch general election, 2017. KarlFrei (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be preferable. The infobox is currently so large that it's not really fulfilling its duty as a summary. Number 57 13:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, such an interpretation of "elected" is too literal. As pointed out at Talk:Italian general election, 2018, "PM/Chancellor after election" may not necessarily refer to the one elected as a result of the election (for the 2018 Italian case it was very clear: Conte was the PM who ended up being appointed and elected as a result of the election, but the immediate PM after the election for some months was Gentiloni).

Secondly, you do not need to change the infobox to have such a minor change; all you need is to use the | posttitle = syntax. Impru20^talk 14:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)