Talk:Commune Council (Cambodia)

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

Cambodia High‑importance

Commune Council (Cambodia) is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Wikipedia, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cambodia To-do:

Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc.

Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values.

I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG

Thankfull for this info. [Unsigned]

One more column?

This article is really taking shape - great job. Listen how about adding one extra column showing the percentage of the vote for each party (and including SJF) this is a much better indication of popularity than the result in terms of commune councilors per party. The electoral counting system at all levels has been heavily slanted in favour of the majority party so the results don't really reflect the extent of popular support (and that's why the NEC doesn't publish them very widely). I think on Wikipedia we should look past the political spin and aim for a less biased and more complete coverage of elections. Let's see, according to the table in the article and the NEC website, CPP won over 98% of the communes (represented by Commune Chief positions) and just over 70% of the Commune councilors. However, they only recieved over 60% of the vote [1]. Compare this to the SRP who won 1.7% of the communes and 23% of the commune councilors. However, they actually polled over 25% of the vote. Even the order that the results are presented in reflects the ongoing battle between Rannaridh and the CPP. Although his new party was forbidden to register until just before the campaign period and the Prince was not in the country (due to an arrest warrant waiting for him) his NRP actually polled better than Funcinpec without the Prince. yet the NEC "Official Results" announcement places Funcinpec ahead of NRP - very interesting. Great article, looking forward to seeing it take shape. Paxse 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paxse: I think it's a good idea but I'm quite busy lately and for the next few weeks. If you have time, please feel free to add the additional column or other info. Thanks. J Lam 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll have a go shortly. Cheers, Paxse 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commune council. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009094251/http://www.necelect.org.kh/English/Home.htm to http://www.necelect.org.kh/English/Home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commune council. 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) 12:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]