Talk:February 2012 Kuwaiti general election

Kuwait Low‑importance

	Kuwait portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kuwait, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kuwait on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KuwaitWikipedia:WikiProject KuwaitTemplate:WikiProject KuwaitKuwait
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

top vote winner per constituency

I have reverted this series of edits, because of four problems:

It replaces plain English (top vote winner) by a more complicated idea (biggest margin of victory). If the "margin of victory" means the difference between the top vote winner and the 2nd top vote winner, then it also introduces original research, since we have no sources for vote counts in the 4th and 5th constituences (and may be wrong in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd constituency - i didn't check this, but the info is available in the references, requiring simple arithmetic). One possible meaning of "margin of victory" is an elected candidate's vote count minus the 11-th top vote winner's vote count - in that case, the edits would be literally correct, without adding any new information. Some of the readers of the English-language Wikipedia are from the United States, where at least in one case, the "margin of victory" requires a piecewise-defined function to be calculated: List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin#Mathematical_definition. "Top vote winner" is mathematically simple and culturally robust - it only requires a numerical sort.
Consolidating the references reduces the verifiability, since it forces the reader to check up to four references instead of just one, depending on which claimed fact s/he wishes to check.
The information on which candidate was top vote winner in which constituency was removed and replaced by the inline weasel tag Template:which in four cases.
The information giving a candidate's more detailed name - al-Otaibi in addition to his main names Faisal al-Mislem - was confused by adding a comma "," between al-Mislem and al-Otaibi. Curiously, no "which" tag was added here, which could give the impression to the reader that al-Mislem was the candidate who got the top number of votes in the al-Otaibi constituency, to someone who did not read the linked articles about Kuwaiti elections.

Boud (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top vote winner is vague, this is not simple english wp. we can work ona beter wording. and we dont cater to a specific bunch of readers, thats not what encyclopaedias too. whether they rare from plac X is irrelevant.

The consolidated references do NOT mean as such, no one forces anything. Standard practice on the vast majority of places is to put refs to the quote not to the ref section add on.

the tag was added because the section was not clear. (which could be discussed)

Further the previous version is not consistent with the top 5 results which shows certain details for 1 candidate in 1 region but misses it for the rrest. that then becomes POV. And this edit does NOT hshow which candidate one where. it simply mentiosn the tiop 5 in "each region"

As for showing referenes to search through multiple sources that is avoidable by tagging refnames instead of putting refs into the bottom where they are not by convention easily found by editors. And further per otaibi there was a strange ref in the middle of his name which caused [obviosu ] confusionLihaas (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]