Talk:2016 Icelandic 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

Iceland Low‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland 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.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Government Formation: Katrin Jakobsdottir given mandate to form next government

Bjarni Benediktsson has failed to form a government. The President of Iceland has now given Katrin Jakobsdottir the mandate to attempt to form a new government. Jakobsdottir's wikipage should be updated to reflect these new developments.

Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interpolation and extrapolation

Is the graph of poll results extrapolated? The tail of the lines for each party look like swinging polynomials without any basis in the poll data. Extrapolation should be left to the reader.

Regarding polls

I think it is best not to add technicalities about number of undecideds, invalid answer etc. What the users need is clarity and overview. "Political nerds" can always go to the source and look up ho the poll was made and what numbers the party distribution is based on. It also breaks the continuity to start placing additional columns without filling them for older polls - but that is less important than first objection.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to include separately polled micro parties in "Other"

Rember to add numbers from micro parties polled separately (like Right Greens) to the Other category. Not just take the number the pollster calls "Other". I have corrected the two latest MMR polls, but can't be bothered to go further back.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs

I think this stack graph should be added

25

50

75

100

125

150

Left Green Movement
Social Democratic
Pirate Party
Bright Future
Progressive Party
Independence Party
Others

-- unsigned comment?

It's quite cool, and makes clear which party is which. If I hadn't known the Pirate party was doing well, I would have assumed the purple P was for progressive on the article page. A color legend would be good in the article-space. :) (Since I have the pop-up gadget enabled I saw without having to click on each article to figure out which party was which, but most people probably don't have this installed. Snoogs didn't like my proposal to help readers orient themselves quickly in the table and help explain context (why the Pirate party might be negotiating from a position of relative power), by adding the PP's polling numbers after the Panama Papers came out, and so deleted a nice synthetic reference from Reuters en passant. Oh well, I used his text to add one in the preceding paragraph. The ways of Snoogs are sometimes inscrutable I suppose. :) SashiRolls (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viðreisn

The centrist and europhile 2014 IP breakaway Viðreisn ("rising again", but often translated as Awakening, Recovery or Renaissance) has been included as a separate entry in the latest Gallup poll published on April 1 and should have its own column, as it has potential and was likely on 2% in the last MMR as well (had 2.1 for "Others", while having all the 2013 election micro parties as separate entries). Also, there is a small error in the version of the Gallup poll uploaded on Electrograph. The Progress Party is at 12.0, not 12.1 (see Icelandic Gallup).--Batmacumba (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latest Gallup poll with Vidreisn at 3.5% confirms that they should be included. It has Other at 4.0%, and 7/8 of that is Vidreisn. The party has ballot access and is much closer to the threshold than other non-represented parties.--Batmacumba (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new University of Iceland poll also as them at 3.5% and since they will be officially founded on May 24 I think they should be included now. I am not good with getting these things right. So it would be great if someone would make a row for Vidreisn.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidreisn was on 7.9% in the latest University of Iceland poll. Bigger than both SDA and BF, so could one you thats good at these things please make a column for Vidreisn?--Batmacumba (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viðreisn on 9.1 in new University of Iceland poll. Again, could someone who is good at this please make a column? Otherwise the table will be increasingly ridiculous. --Batmacumba (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some links to all these polls? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already sourced and inserted the 7.9% poll in the table. The polls are regularly posted in the Icelandic press. Morgunbladid is your default option, but right now that isn't all that relevant. I will insert the polls and source them if someone else will just adjust the table and make a column.--Batmacumba (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussion

The article about Viðreisn was moved to another name without prior discussion by user:Nevermore in a bold move, who refused to move it back despite no consensus. There is currently an ongoing naming discussion, so please keep the name until this is settled as it is the default option (what the article was called before the non-consensual move.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia, User:Batmacumba. The English-language name of political parties is always preferred. You have made the point that Viðreisn can be translated multiple ways, and this is not a point that I have ever denied. When an official translation is made available, I agree the name can and should be changed/moved. But until an official translation is available, a common translation (i.e. "Reconstruction", which was found after consulting three separate ISL-ENG dictionaries) is going to be preferred, because most English speakers can't even read, let alone pronounce Viðreisn. Please stop treating this area like your personal fiefdom and defining "non-consensual edits" as "edit I disapprove of". Nevermore27 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true I'm afraid. What is preferred is the common name, and that is not the same as the English name. Anyone arguing that we need to use the English names for Likud, Syriza, Venstre would be shot down rather quickly. Number 5 7 22:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, though I would point out that SYRIZA is an acronym and that's why it's preferred to "Coalition of the Radical Left". My main objection to continued use of Viðreisn is that non-Nordic language speakers have no point of reference for how to read or pronounce the name, which doesn't apply to Likud or Venstre. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Nordic and I know how to read and pronounce it. And it is being called Viðreisn in the English-language press (I can't find a single mention anywhere of it being called Reconstruction). Number 5 7 22:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also know how to pronounce it, but that doesn't make me or you an arbiter for the English-speaking public at large. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping my objection and supporting the use of Viðreisn in the future until and unless an official translation is available, per User:Batmacumba's arguments in favor on the Talk:Viðreisn page. I had an emotional reaction to Batmacumba's condescending imperiousness in the past. Nevermore27 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 05 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus what the best title is at this time, though someone moved it already to 2016 – Try again later if it looks like a good idea, or ask an admin to revert the move if you care. (non-admin closure) — Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic parliamentary election, 2017 → Next Icelandic parliamentary election – The PM has just resigned and there is a good chance that early elections will be called, but they might not be. The new name covers us both ways. I'd make the move, but "Next Icelandic parliamentary election" is already a re-direct to "Icelandic parliamentary election, 2017" – Bondegezou (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou and 70.51.45.100: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment will an election be held in 2017, regardless of what happens now? If so, a new article should be created instead. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If early elections are called, then there won't be an election in 2017. If there's a 2016 election, then the next election would be in 2020, or earlier if early elections were again called. Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see Bigggan has already moved it to 2016. It looks highly likely that the elections will be called, but it's not official yet as far as I'm aware (certainly the BBC is reporting that elections have been requested but the President has not actually consented to it yet). Given that it looks like this will be resolved fairly quickly, it might be best to just wait until the President comes to a decision. Number 57 23:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While some uncertainty remains, I still think "Next..." is a better article name. It's NPOV and an approach we've used in many other cases. Bondegezou (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I completely agree in normal circumstances, but it looks like the decision will be made before the RM actually comes up for closure in five days' time. If it hasn't (and the President hasn't confirmed the elections will definitely not be held until 2017) then I agree we should move it to "next". Number 5 7 08:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Next..." is a good title for any article. Next is relative to now, and now is always changing. Sooner or later any page titled "Next..." will need a move because it won't be next, it will be previous! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Give the MOS a read next time. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @QEDK: I'm not sure what you mean. The nominator's move request is actually in line with the naming guideline (WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums). The only question is when the elections will happen – if definitely this year or next year, then 2016 or 2017 is appropriate. If we're still not sure exactly when, then Next is (and see Category:Future elections in Europe for plenty more examples if you have your doubts about the usage of which). Number 57 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I understood it, it's scheduled for next year. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, I've stricken my vote. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 10:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Some time has now passed since the immediate political crisis broke. We have what appear to be somewhat vague commitments to elections in the autumn, but nothing actually formally fixed and articles like this seem to suggest some ongoing uncertainty. In this context, I would suggest that "Next..." is more appropriate than the current 2016 label. Bondegezou (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Abbreviations used for parties vary: it's a mess!

This is a major problem and makes the article a mess. The abbreviations used in various places are not explained and they vary. Please would someone who knows what they mean sort this out as soon as possible. Boscaswell talk 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I can see abbreviations in the poll table and those are explained under campaign + if you place the cursor on the abbreviation. Could you be a bit more specific?--Batmacumba (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that the party list letters used in Iceland conflict with the party abbreviations used elsewhere in the article, so Bright Future is A list etc. I too have found this point confusing, but I don't know what the solution is! Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we can just switch to list letters in the polling table.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not. The list letters are confusing and unobvious: e.g. why are Bright Future list A? I'd rather stick with the abbreviations and maybe add more explanation as to what the list letters are about? Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to solve this problem by adding the abbreviations used in the polls to a sentence in the paragraph immediately preceding them, but apparently that didn't help? Also, I tried to add a synthetic reference from Reuters that spoke of the Pirate Party's polling position in the elections, but it was edit warred out... (I'm repeating a comment above, which you can find by searching for Reuters. SashiRolls (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed both the abbreviations and the list letters in the party list. I think that should be enough.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Píratar

Although Birgitta Jónsdóttir, chair of the Pirate Party's parliamentary group, is often considered the "inofficial party leader" in the media, the Píratar actually seem to have an official position of party leader (in Icelandic, formaður), the office changing on a yearly base: 2012-13 Birgitta Jónsdóttir, 2013-14 Jón Þór Ólafsson, 2014-15 Birgitta Jónsdóttir again, and 2015-16 Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson. According to the official parliament profile of Pirate Party MP Þórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, she's currently "formaður Pírata síðan 2016", that is "leader/chairman of the Pirate Party since 2016", the English page also says "Chairman of the Pirate Party since 2016". I suppose this is mainly a position for formal purposes, as the party apparently prefers to emphasize their "collective leadership", but still - the position exists. I changed the article accordingly. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The chairman of a party isn't necessarily its leader and this is reflected in our articles (see fx. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Social_Liberal_Party). Its clear that this position as chairman of the Pirate Party doesn't make you their political leader, so I disagree with the change.--Batmacumba (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my understanding last time this was discussed. They have a (rotating) chairman, but Birgitta is the closest thing to a leader, as Per reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Batmacumba and Bondegezou: Well, it is the official position of chairman. For the other parties, the chairman is identical with the actual leader. Although the Pirate Party is a special case, I think that the official chairman should at least be noted here as well. Currently, Birgitta Jónsdóttir is neither the official, nor (in the "collective leadership" approach of the Pirates) de facto leader of the party, she's rather the most prominent representative. Maybe we could agree on a compromise: Either add Þórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir as the official chairman to the infobox, with a footnote describing the peculiar case and noting that Birgitta Jónsdóttir as leader of the parliamentary group is often perceived as the Pirates' "inofficial leader", or the other way round: Keep Birgitta there, but note in a footnote that the offical position of chairman is held by Þórhildur. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When possible coalitions were being discussed, the President approached Birgitta, described here as the head of the party's parliamentary group. For the purposes of an election, the person the President approaches is, I think, the person we want shown in the infobox. I am happy for the present footnote to be expanded to go into the details more, although some of this can just be left for the Pirate Party article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: That's acceptable. I will add to the existing footnote that Þórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir is chair of the party for the 2016-17 period. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Edit: done, ok? Gestumblindi (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Icelandic parliamentary election, 2016. 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) 07:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]