Jump to content

Talk:2012 Lesotho general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changes

[edit]

Let's discuss these changes, there was no consensus when this was tried on the isereal election page (in fact it was voted down). Further see the article title for consistency. Perhaps a wider discussion at the Elections WikiProhect would be in order so as not to screw with consistency on the several election articles over the last 2 yeasLihaas (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:
  1. Nothing was "voted down" at Talk:Next Israeli legislative election.
  2. If we are talking about consistency, all other Lesotho election articles start with the term "General elections"
I've tried to explain to you several times that it is common usage to refer to "elections" even if it is only a single election event. If you don't believe, me, have a look at these news articles: BBC - "Lesotho parliamentary elections"AFP - "Lesotho holds early voting in fiercely fought elections"The Economist - "Elections in Lesotho"Mail & Guardian - "Former allies battles it out in Lesotho elections"The Post - "Lesotho elections conducted within legal framework"The Republic - "Lesotho parliamentary elections"All Africa - "...unexpectedly strong showing in the country's elections" Number 57 14:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah someone else came in later, but there was certainly no consensus for the change on the standardised format on most articles. That needs consensus to change and discussion is better than restoring a version that is not agreed upon.
Further WP is not a news outlet, it doesnt parrot what the media chooses, or the internet decrees, as language, which if that was the case, there would be a heck of a lot of difference. Also ive tried to exlpain the article is called election in the singular sense all across the WP election articles and that is then contradictory to change it in the very first sentence which is reflective of the title. Thats why this needs a wider consensus before changing itLihaas (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles are a lot more formal and formulaic than the text of an article - one would not say "Lesotho general election, 2012" in speech or in a written sentence - and therefore is an irrelevance to how the article itself is written. I did not say that Wikipedia is a news outlet - I was merely pointing out to you how the English language is used, and giving examples. Number 57 14:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the media it is, but this is encyclopaedic.
Also the first bold bit in the lead is reflective of the article...if no t then what is it for?
Anyhoo, as in the srael election page it seems this is split either way and a consensus wont come out on individual pages witha few editors. A wiider debate should solve this once and for all. (or until someone else comes along in the future per WP:CCC;))
We should attempt tpo generate discussion as appropriateness is subjective, and it could be repalced with another tag in order to get consensusLihaas (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't accept the media, then perhaps you will accept Nohlen & Stöver, which I hope is sufficiently encyclopaedic given that its authors are all highly regarded political scientists. Opening five pages at random, I find:
  1. Page 809: "The Veneizelists were defeated in the 1920 constitutional assembly elections"
  2. Page 505: "This phenomenon had annoyed other parties for quite some time who got an excuse for acting when the Liberals' metropolitan branch registered as a separate party before the 1947 elections"
  3. Page 891: "In the non-competitive elections of 1949..."
  4. Page 652: "The reintroduction of direct presidential elections, as pursued by de Gaulle, broke the taboo dating from the presidential elections of 1848."
  5. Page 1768: "In the 1992 elections of the National Assembly"
Number 57 18:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you cannot have everything your way or the high way without consensus. Im trying to talk, i called for a wider discussion but you only want to assert one way. Thats not consensus.
I want to be civil because we have worked together well many times but this change based on one assumption that has no consensus whatsoever is unnacceptable just because of admn status or whathaveyou. Per BRD kindly get the consensus for the change. (I have not reverted on this page, per 3RR but we need consensus)Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were concerned that "elections" was not encyclopedic, so I addressed this by providing text from an academic book that backs up the fact that the word is appropriate - hardly based on "one assumption". I am happy to have a discussion at WP:Elections and referendums on this issue, but I will also continue to defend normal usage of English where I see it being abused. Number 57 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Your edits have been great, weve worked together realy well. I came to call your opinion before and appreciated your dispute resolution, which was even against me, but i happily agreed i was against consensus. Your edits are great too (like the template to split the seats (which i cam to do myself)). But "normal" is apparently subjective as theres disagreement. this is why we discuss have guideliens liek BRD to avoid edit wars. You should now the onuws is always on the person seeking the change when reverted.Lihaas (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may also be interested to see that Lesotho's Independent Electoral Commission lists Statement on the Annoucement of 2012 National Assembly Elections Results. Note the plural usage of both Elections and Results. Please stop changing the template. Number 57 19:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP styles that came up with the titles.
Anyways, you are an admin you should know better than to edit war with 3RR in less than even 6 hours as you did on the template! This is what guidelines are for to avoid wars.
Please gain consensus on changed you seek before radding on disputed per BRD.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So any progress on getting consensus instead of warring per IDONTLIKEIT opinions on continuing to change what is deemed wrong? Election wkiproject is bext place(Lihaas (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
I think the only IDONTLIKEIT issue here is yours. You refused to believe that using elections in the plural was not proper English. I provided media examples. You claimed this was not formal enough. I provided academic examples. You then refused to acccept these. The only reason I can think of is IDONTLIKEIT. Why else?
As for plastering the article with a "factual accuracy is disputed" tag, there is no factual dispute, only a wording one. The tagging is pathetic - please remove it. Number 57 08:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS, as for BRD, you were the one that changed the article to use the singular. See the last version before you started editing. Number 57 08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox note

[edit]

Can someone put a note in the infobox seats for LCD that part of the loss of seats include the defections to DCLihaas (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneLihaas (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To do

[edit]

We need the 40 other MPs on the list + the acronyms for the unrepresented partes (there was a list on the page of the nominees for the PR list for each party, but they removed it and i cant find the file in my cache)Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got the acronyms from here and have added them to the template.
The list candidates are here. Number 57 20:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, kudos. Good show.
 Done
Stupid bloody idiot bugger, i knew i had it somewhere...added it to EL ;( Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AS an aside, the 40 other MPs still need t be added(Lihaas (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Third Party?

[edit]

I may be confused on the meaning of the term "Third Party," but since the DC received the plurality, would they not be the "First Party?" Svyatoslav (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've fixed this. Number 57 21:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lesotho general election, 2012. 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:

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) 16:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Lesotho_general_election&oldid=1196617724"