Talk:Croatian Labourists – Labour Party

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia 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.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties 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.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

English name

I noticed Ye Olde Anarchist (talk · contribs) brought up [1], a picture on their web site where they simply call themselves "Croatian Labour Party". But, there's another party called that way, and the official registrations for both of them confirm that they have the moniker: [2] [3] That would have to be resolved first... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elections results tables

United Union,

for the love of God, the table that I have added is not "vandalism". The current table is confusing to readers, and to those readers who are not politics experts, it would even seem as if HL scored over 30%, which it didn't. While I realize that it is clarified, the table I have added is more in line with tables for parties in other countries.

You claim that there is "no additional information" in the table I have added, and that the former one was "better". Can I ask, how is it better? Mine makes a clearer distinction between party and coalition – given the Croatian electoral system, there are no separate numbers for party and coalition, which makes it completely reasonable to place "With Croatia is Growing" in place of the party's vote %.

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to remove table. It's clear and does not make any confusion. What is confusing about it? You don't have to be "politics expert" to read it. Its clear. It says, "Coalition totals" which is the number of votes won by the coalition, and also has that number in brackets which is number of preferential votes received by HL's candidates so it demonstrates party "popularity" and gives readers opportunity to, for example, compare party results with one from the previous elections. Yours doesn't contain this so it is deficient. You said "this one contains more information", not me, and I don't see that. There is no need for all the tables to be "in line". Some of the articles have this type of table while others don't. I propose that we bring back the previous table and write a text explaining the contents so you wouldn't be confused anymore: "The following is a summary of HL's results in legislative elections for the Croatian parliament. The "Votes won" and "Percentage" columns include sums of votes won by coalitions HL had been part of. After preferential votes were added to the electoral system, the votes column also includes the statistic of the total number of such votes received by candidates of HL on coalition lists. The "Total seats won" column includes sums of seats won only by HL in election. Column "Change" shows how many votes HL has gained or lost." United Union (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point with the preferential votes – I have now added it, as well as a brief explanation, which is more than the previous table had. Feel free to add an additional explanation in text outside the table, but with this update to the table, I definitely see no need to revert to the former one. I realize that it's natural for you to prefer your own table, but this without a doubt an improvement. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. There is no point of removing this table now since it's the same as previous one, with only difference being its visual appearance so I will leave it, although I would write somewhere the amount of votes received by the Coalition as whole because there were voters, myself included, who voted for the list (Coalition), and not for any particular party from the list. Greetings, United Union (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I feel that would be redundant, as we have already included the coalition's vote share. While it's good with as much information as possible, we have to remember that this is the article of Labour, not of Hrvatska raste. After all, we have already included the latter's vote share in the "notes" column. Cheers. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]