Talk:2012 Belizean general election

A news item involving 2012 Belizean general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 March 2012.

Wikipedia

Belize Mid‑importance

	Belize portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belize, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belize 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.BelizeWikipedia:WikiProject BelizeTemplate:WikiProject BelizeBelize articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's 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 articles
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 articles

results table

I ported the results table from the government election site here [1]. I don't see how it can be a copyvio since it's a table of public data with no prose. If I'm wrong, please revert, tag, and put a "you're a bad person" tag on my user page. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OAS/EOM

I propose to avoid the abbreviation OAS/EOM, and instead spell out Electoral Observation Mission, also at the second mention. The abbreviation is, as far as I know, rather seldom used and not generally established. Moreover, we cannot assume that all readers read the article like a novel from the first to the last line. Some may only read the result and reactions sections, but skip the monitors section, and then wonder what OAS/EOM might stand for and who these guys are. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, we don't have to save space at any rate, we can afford spelling it out to improve readability and comprehensibility, even for superficial readers. --RJFF (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted its not commong, but nothing wrong withredlink when there is an official name. Good to haev finally found out the actual name.

Also the reading one section only goes for anything where there are always acronyms at the end without spelling out.Lihaas (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg

This reorg has moved around info as such to suggest the unofficial referendum is part of the official result (Where the table is, now withut a subject) when it was run seperately at a different date by a different private body. It also adds redundancy to the lead where the same passage is repeated in the very next para. and it adds extra data to the lead when the lead shuld summarise the article. (which by convention puts the data below). an dbasically reverts everythign without reason. the BOLD edit should be discussed on revert.

It is also possibly a new editor as many edits go against convention./guidelines such as removing the wikilink atkingmaker, adding resultS when its singular, "monitoring group monitored", removed wikilink under discussion (above), "in the round"??? and removed interwiki links. Als of which make it hard to assume AGF in the edit summary when summarily reverted.Lihaas (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot take your comments seriously when you imply that I am a "new" editor who edited the article in bad faith. Seems more like an ad hominem attack rather than a discussion of the changes on their merits. If there were any "blind reverts", it was the arbitrary reversion of my original GF edits. Agent 86 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]