Talk:2016 Serbian parliamentary election

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 articles

Serbia Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Election(s)

@Number 57: you're a native speaker of English, and I'm not. Still, by my knowledge, this was an election, singular, as it involves a proportional system where each voter gets to choose a single list. Even the United Kingdom general election, 2010 (which, using majority system) can be argued to contain 650 "micro-elections") uses singular in the title and the lead; I don't see why this one would differ. No such user (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user: Elections is common parlance (both in the media and academic publications) and used more widely than "election" regardless of the type of system used. In case you're wary of what I'm saying, I provided some evidence for this in a previous discussion with another editor here. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just had to revert your removal of the "a" in the introduction – the sentence is grammatically incorrect without it (the "a" refers to the record-breaking, not the lists). Cheers, Number 5 7 11:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I may not be a native speaker, but I'm a linguist. wikt:record-breaking is an adjective, and the subject of the sentence is "seven lists", plural, therefore it should go without an 'a'. You might be misled by constructions such as "A record-breaking number of...", but sorry, this is not the same construction. No such user (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for election(s), I don't personally care one way or another, but I'd like some consistency here, and consistency with the article title in particular. I'm not particularly swayed by your arguments in the debate you linked: as Lihaas said, if we chose singular "election" as an in-house style, and use it for major election in a major English-speaking country (United Kingdom general election, 2010), I don't see a good reason to deviate from that. No such user (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm a native speaker, I'm also a former English teacher (and I also do proofreading as part of my current job), and I can say with confidence that that sentence is definitely not correct without the indefinite article. See some similar examples from the BBC: "Adele's comeback album - 25 - has sold a record-breaking 3.38 million copies", "Game of Thrones picked up a record-breaking 12 awards", The record for the longest penalty shoot-out came in 2005 when the Namibian Cup had to be settled by a record-breaking 48 spot-kicks.

Fair enough. Being a descriptivist myself, I'm fine with that, although I might ask for opinions at WP:RDL, chiefly out of curiosity. 13:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the use of election/elections, we don't have an in-house style for the text of an article; the article title is singular, but is a formal and formulaic construction that would never be used in prose. I entirely agree about consistency though, and the vast majority of Serbian election articles use the plural. Number 5 7 12:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another also – in the aftermath section (thanks for adding that!), you stated that the "DSS-Dveri coalition ended up a single vote short". Was it really this close – i.e. one single vote more would have taken them over the 5% threshold? Cheers, Number 5 7 12:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was, here's an article in English: [1]. No such user (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That must have been a very fine decimal. Number 5 7 12:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Method of counting

Number 57, Nikgudz: may I ask for some discussion about the method of calculating percentages, rather the going after the edit war? I think I'm going to notify WP:WPE&R to chime in as well.

As I understand from User_talk:Nikgudz#Percentages, the issue here is whether to count invalid votes in the total (as is the standard in Serbia) or not (as is the standard elsewhere). While I don't have a strong opinion, I'd much prefer using the same method as the Serbian Commission (RIK) – all the sources we're going to use across Wikipedia will quote those numbers, and using a different method would be borderline WP:OR (although permissible per WP:CALC). Please don't inconvenience other editors -- I've just edited Dveri using Number 57's number (5.19) of this article [2], just to see the figure in this article changed to 5.04%, per RIK counting [3]. Let's just use the RIK numbers and note how they're counted in #Electoral system, and be done with it. No such user (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to use the standard methodology in order to ensure consistency between election articles in different countries. Certainly the academic source I have that reports Serbian election results uses the standard format even though the RIK includes the invalid votes, as does the Psephos website. Number 5 7 13:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every country has its own method, and that method needs to be respected according to the principles of that particular country. Simple as that, RIK results are only valid. In that way we avoid percentage differences. Nikgudz 15:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why consistency is so important in this aspect. Of reader's principal interest is to compare parties' achievements within the given election article, and it is not relevant to compare SNS's 48.25% in Serbia with e.g. AK Party's 49.5% in Turkish general election, November 2015 – they didn't run the same race so that consistency is meaningless. If you use a different methodology than the country's official one, you open a can of worms. For example, imagine that DSS/Dveri did not make it across the 5% threshold (by RIK standards) – but your method would produce e.g. 5.08%, creating a grand "wtf" moment for the user: is 5.08% really below the threshold of 5%??! I don't mind adding another column to e.g. "Results" table with an alternate set of figures, but well over 99% of the local news sources will use the local method of calculation across the field, and you cannot control hundreds of editors and dozens of articles. No such user (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be noted that the 5% application includes invalid votes (it really should be in the electoral system section, as I would imagine most people would assume it didn't given the normal way of presenting election results). I would say it would also be confusing to readers to see results different to those they might find in reliable sources on elections.

Unfortunately I see Nikgudz has continued their poor behaviour on this issue by canvassing another editor for their support. Number 5 7 13:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crucial argument was given by "No such user" about the threshold. Nikgudz 15:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox

The new infobox added by Djidash has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been reverted by Nikgudz. Can we have a debate about this, because I felt it was a huge improvement – it conveys far more useful information in less than half the space. The old infobox is far too big and doesn't even cover all the parties that won seats. If people are concerned about consistency, it's very easy to change all the other previous election articles to this format too. Number 5 7 15:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new infobox has my support too. Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, if it is felt that all elections should have the Israeli-style infobox, then there should be consensus sought on that, perhaps through an RfC advertised on all Serbian election talk pages. If not, then this infobox should not be changed without consensus to change all the rest. (I also think, on the whole, the existing infobox is clearer and displays more useful information than the Israeli-style infobox.) Dionysodorus (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bring the UK dispute here please guys. Number 5 7 16:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Number 57 and my apologies for any role in that regard. I have been following this article since before the UK dispute and feel that the 'new' infobox is suitable given the number of parties that won seats. As per the spirit of WP:WIP, articles are usually worked on one at a time and I don't see any need to do an RfC covering all Serbian election talk pages. However, we should definitely keep the heated exchange of opinion around the 2015 UK general election article away from here! Bondegezou (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree - it wouldn't do for everyone to pounce on the Serbian election series. I would find it generally concerning, as a broader principle, though, if adopting a new infobox into one article should become a "wedge" for putting it into the rest of any series: in both election series, consensus should be sought openly and broadly, and taking the merits of the box for all pages in the series into account - if a wider adoption is proposed than just in one article. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with new infobox...no reason to change something that is good, and how it was in previous elections. It is not too large at all. ---Nikgudz 22:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly too large – it's over two screens long on my laptop, whereas the new one fits on a single screen AND displays more information. You really need to stop with the knee-jerk reverts and actually consider things. Number 5 7 22:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the new infobox format; details can be tweaked later (whether to list all parties and whether to include leader photos), as well as whether it should be applied to past election articles as well. If I had known that {{infobox election}} existed, I would have introduced it myself. As I said in my revert, it provides the same amount of information on far less space, and with 7 major parties the old format is just unwieldy. I'm often using a 10" tablet to read and edit the article (like, I guess, many other readers), and overall layout and reader's experience are superior with this compact format. No such user (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the new infobox format, it is much more readable, concise, fits in better visually and covers results completely. Sideshow Bob 07:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If some of you people can show me how to put color when there are more parties in coalition (not only one that has his own color) I will replace all old infoboxes with new ones (for every election from 1990. to 2016.). ---Nikgudz 23:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikgudz: You need to create meta templates for them. For instance, the one for the Serbian Progressive Party is Template:Serbian Progressive Party/meta/color. You will also need to create shortname templates for them (e.g. Template:Serbian Progressive Party/meta/shortname). Number 5 7 21:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but problem is when I want to add color before the name of some coalition (like SDS-LDP-LSV or Dveri-DSS). There is no color1 and color2 options :( I also think it could be good to add number of votes and that will be that. We have better infobox than one before. ---Nikgudz 00:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izkala: Can you add the colour function to the template? Cheers, Number 5 7 22:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason we can't create meta templates for the coalitions? Izkala (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izkala: Because there aren't articles – they are usually simply linked as (e.g.) SPS–JS and then a colour added manually (i.e. we couldn't make a functional shortname template). Number 5 7 16:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Izkala (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for work on the infobox. I note that it says, "This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below." However, it doesn't list all the parties that won seats. Can we fix that, adding in the others?

I also -- and this is more a matter of taste -- find it rather cluttered with party logos and leaders' headshots. Can we remove logos (put them in the main results table in the article instead)? Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored infobox as it is supposed to be used (i.e. without photos/logos/barcharts and with all parties listed). @Nikgudz: Please do not include the logos or photos of the leaders – it looks atrocious and negated the whole point of it being a compact summary (plus the use of some of the logos is a copyright violation). Can you also add the colour for Bosniak Democratic Union. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've had to restore it again. @Nikgudz: Please stop adding the pictures and bar charts. You cannot use the bar charts because this stops the seat change function working properly. Also this template MUST include all parties that won seats – that's the whole point of it. Number 5 7 12:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You only know to threat someone. I want to make some visual changes that will make infobox better. If it remains the way you want than old infobox is much better. Nikgudz 14:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People, please remember to focus on content and not each others' behaviour. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. We can take our time to discuss this: there is no need to edit war the article. Leave it as is, work out here what has consensus support and then go forwards. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Nikgudz: If you didn't keep reverting, there wouldn't be a problem. If someone reverts your change, you are supposed to try and get consensus for that change rather than repeatedly reverting back to your preferred version. And as pointed out, two of your changes (the bar chart and omitting small parties) do not work for this infobox. Number 5 7 13:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop messing around? Current infobox presented by Nikgudz is awful. Can you restore original one, or place other one, at least that one by Number 57? This is very bad. --Axiomus (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Axiomus: Unfortunately I have reverted Nikgudz three times today, so am unable to do so again, but you are more than welcome to revert his most recent edit to get the consensus version back. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But i dont care about this, i dont want to revert on top of your edit war. Two of you must talk here and gain a consensus. Dont revert anymore, try to talk. If that fails, more of us may join discussion. --Axiomus (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the infobox uncomfortably long with the addition of the photos. Perhaps if they were smaller. I don't see why the percentages need to be in bold either. Izkala (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. And the smaller parties need putting back. Can we go back to the original consensus version in the meantime please? Number 5 7 14:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikgudz: Would you please consider moving the leader photos to the ballot table below? I've got to keep scrolling and scrolling on my measly 11-inch laptop to see the full results - I imagine it's a lot worse on mobile! Izkala (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On my laptop is everything allright, also on my mobile. On the other elections (in other countries, not just Serbia) it was and it is ok to have leader photos, but suddenly it is not good here. Really I think we can not change infobox traditional way of showing leaders because someone want to see everything on 11-inch monitor. Nikgudz 00:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually no point in using the legislative infobox with leader photos. It defeats the whole purpose. I suggest either reverting to the original {{Infobox election}} or the newer {{Infobox legislative election}}, for which consensus was established above. Izkala (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok than change it to old infobox and everything will be allright. You dont mind that we have old infoboxes in 99% of countries (that are bigger, with larger pictures and many more columns than this one) but it is very important in this Serbian elections 2016. It is very hypocritical. Nikgudz 00:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the pictures important? The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the results. I can understand their importance in a presidential election, as people are voting for the specific person, but this is a party vote.

Secondly, this infobox is relatively new, and is slowly being adopted, so gradually you will see other countries using it. Number 5 7 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we have the full names of the leaders back? I assume just having the surname was meant to make it fit with the pictures, but that doesn't matter any more. Plus there is no reason to have the percentages in bold either. Number 5 7 22:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is all slightly unreasonable. Number 57 asserts that this infobox is "slowly being adopted": another way of putting this is that Number 57 has an agenda to adopt this infobox in all election series. There is no general consensus that the Israeli-style infobox warrants general adoption, or that it is "slowly being adopted". There is no obvious local consensus either, for either Nikgudz' infobox or the Israeli-style one, and therefore there should probably be a reversion to the previous style of infobox under WP:NOCONSENSUS. Dionysodorus (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far in this discussion, the new infobox style has support of Bondegezou, Number 57, Izkala, Sideshow Bob, myself, and Axiomus, and we're all citing accessibility and succinctness. Against it are Nikgudz (presumably, stating consistency as rationale) and yourself, with a reason I can't discern other than it's a WP:BURO one, with a personal attack to boot ("Number 57 has an agenda"). This article is new, and there wasn't any previous consensus to revert to; silence is the weakest form of consensus. And no, it is not OK on my mobile – the infobox takes three screens to scroll down, and one screen to scroll right to see the 3rd and 6th party, before even getting to the lead. Can someone quote a reason for keeping this abomination better than hand-waving? No such user (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, rereading my above comment, that was rather bordering on personal attack. I didn't quite mean that, and I would like to apologise to User:Number 57 - very sorry. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So no one in parliamentary elections used this kind of poor infobox table without leader pictures except here

We can restore old infoboxes or add some elements to this one (I support adding some elements to this one). All elections have old infobox and this one, the way how it now looks, is worst choice I believe. Nikgudz 15:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, several other countries do. Montenegrin parliamentary election, 2016 and the others in that series being one example. Secondly, we've already had this discussion, and consensus was to use the one we have now. You are offering no new justification for the change that only you want, so this is really a case of WP:DROPTHESTICK. Number 5 7 13:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]