Talk:January 2015 Greek legislative election

Continued reference to Golden Dawn as the third polling party

Since the emergence of To Potami earlier this year, Golden Dawn have no longer been consistently polling as the third party. On average Golden Dawn are still third, yes, but compared to their situation in say, mid-2013, this lead is no longer particularly sizable or reliable. For example, at the timr of writing, two of the last six polls given here put someone other than Golden Dawn in third place. In particular, it seems odd for the article to say that SYRIZA are "ahead in most polls" but simply state that Golden Dawn are "third in the polls" with no qualifying statement when the recent polling given in this article would indicate SYRIZA's current position to be considerably more consistent than Golden Dawn's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.151.42 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Table issues

Ok, so I'm starting this to discuss about the best model of table for the opinion polling section, seeing as how everyone has his/her own opinion about it:

• Impru20: Initially this, then this.
• 4idaho: This.
• Number 57: This.
• Rrius: This.

Let's discuss the characteristics that would fit the table best and choose the table proposal which better fits the model. Impru20 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be readable, both in terms of what content is included (i.e., you have to tell people the date of the poll they are looking at) and in terms of size. There is no reason to use small text when the table is by no means enormous. And given that the main data are numbers, making the text a normal size is all the more important. Also, the table shouldn't contain excess code (such as the superfluous "align=center" coding we had and the choice of making the table sortable, but setting each column to "class=unsortable". As for cell height and some of the other issues, it seems this code was copied from a table that had seat projections, but it seems unnecessary to add that whitespace. In terms of a discussion, it's not clear exactly what there is to talk about. -Rrius (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the melodramatics of "stop this edit madness", I don't see what is wrong with the old version as Impru20 reverted to here. If the table gets too long (and it hasn't yet), then the answer is to create Opinion polling for the Next Greek legislative election, as is fairly standard around the project. -Rrius (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I called it "edit madness" not to be "melodramatic", but just because it IS an edit conflict madness: since I put my initial version of the table at 23:36, 27 May 2013, there have been:

• 5 reverts.
• 3 major edits (with differences of more than 1,000 bytes).
• A load of "minor edits" (I'm calling minor edits to those edits with differences lesser than 1,000 bytes, not those with the minor edit option on), with each user going his/her own way.

All of them, made by different users. I think it is something that calls for discussion and consensus to be reached before a definitive version of the table can be added, since everyone keeps unilaterally pushing forward its own version of the table to the previous user. Sometimes I agree with some of the changes made (i.e. removing the align=center option, the "sortable" option of the table, and other technical changes), but there are points where we don't seem to agree: font size (I see 90% better than 100%, as an example; or adding the year to each poll's date, which I strongly oppose because it just helps to widen the "date" colum to enormous extremes... as well as other users, who I believe have their own opinions about it). So, instead of keeping pushing forward with this, I think we should adhere to WP:BRD. Since there are several of us, I believe it is a good idea that we reach consensus before having a definitive table.

About me reverting the page back to how it was before my first edit, this is because it is the most recent article version before the edit conflicts. So please, don't try to improve it, because it is not intended to last for long: just to be kept until consensus is reached. Impru20 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My first question is why the hell we are having the discussion here, rather than at the article we were actually editing. Unless you come up with a great reason, I'm moving the discussion there. -Rrius (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually have a great reason, and it is not even mine because it doesn't depend on me: the link for the Talk page of the Next Greek election redirects here. In short: it looks like both the June 2012 election talk page and the Next election talk page are one and the same. I noticed it a while after I started the discussion. Impru20 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, let's get to the heart of the matter:

1. There seems no necessity at all to move from the old version (what is currently there) to something new. It is not too long, and it is not hard to understand. You have so far not responded to the obvious suggestion that when the table gets too long, it can be spun out to a separate polling article, which is done for elections throughout Wikipedia.
2. Small text is hard to read, and should be used for only very specific purposes, almost always involving short, non-essential information (such as footnotes). You have presented no reason for decreasing the size other than your personal preference. The other side of the question is readability. It is physically difficult to read small text, so why hinder people? The table is not so wide that is necessary to do so. We need more than your personal aesthetic preference.
3. Including the year in the date is of the utmost importance. If you are actually looking at more than the last few polls, it is impossible to know what date's poll you are looking at. That is doubly so with your (unnecessary) scroll pane, which heavily restricts the number of lines you can see at once. It is simply foolish not to show the year, and if your only reason is that the column becomes too wide, that is a silly argument. It is silly enough to deprive people of vital information because you don't like the way the column looks, but sillier to do so when there are rational ways to deal with the issue. First, you can let the line break. Second, you can abbreviate the names of the months. Both are used in other tables across the project to great effect.

I don't see any need for change, but if we are to have it, it needs to be done in a way that leaves readers able to access the information. They are who we write this stuff for. If we don't present the information in a way that is accessible to readers, there is very little point in presenting it at all. -Rrius (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lets work off of the compromise table proposed by Impru20, viewable at Impru20's sandbox. It answers all of Number57's concerns (although he also said he thought the text size should be 100%), and, in its current form, would have the support of me, Number57, and Impru20. It removes all of the excess coding mentioned by Rruis and Number57.

The last major issues, as far as I can tell, are text size (Impru20 supports 90%, Rrius and Number57 support 100%, I have no opinion), sortable columns (which Impru20 and Rrius both agree should be implemented, as do I. Number57 has not voiced an opinion), and whether the year belongs in the date column or as a divider in the actual table.

My knowledge of code is limited, but it should be relatively simply to add sortable columns to the compromise table, no?

As to text size, I think that at 100% the numbers seem too big, but I can also see that it would be more kind to the elderly or those with bad eyesight to use the larger numbers. If I had to take sides, I would say 100%, which seems to mean Impru20 is outvoted.

The last issue is whether to put the year in the date column, or as a divider in the table. I agree with Impru20 that it widens the date column excessively to put the year in that column. That would seem to make Rruis outvoted on the issue, since Number57's table also divided the table by years.

So if we only increase the font size to 100%, and Rruis adds his sortable columns, would the proposed compromise table be OK with everyone? --4idaho (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

First, you don't understand the sort issue. No one thinks it should be sortable. The code said "wikitable sortable", but then then each header had "class=unsortable", which cancels out the sortability. That makes it all useless code. The answer is to remove all of the code (including " sortable" from "wikitable sortable").

Second, it is not enough to vote. You need to actually respond to concerns. Let's say it is 2015, and I want to look at a poll from June 2014. How would I find it? It is incredibly easy to accidentally scroll past what I was looking for and find myself looking at June 2013 without knowing it. And it is frankly stupid to put readers in that position.

You say you are worried about the column being too wide, yet you fail to address the fact that I named two possible solutions to that "problem". You can abbreviate month names, and you can let lines break. Both are perfectly acceptable, and both are currently used (independently and in combination) throughout the project. What is not done is to leave off the year in a table that covers multiple years. That is just mad. Why bother keeping polls beyond the last few if you are going to make it difficult for readers use older polls? -Rrius (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone's concerns are being addressed, it's just that whether we put the year in the date column or not is an either/or issue. We either do it or we don't.

For the record, dividing by year is also commonly used throughout wikipedia. I'm also confused how you think someone can be scrolling so fast they miss a big grey bar, but will be able to see the date change in the small text in the date column.

Abbreviating months presents problems because not everyone reading the english wikipedia speaks perfect english. Wikipedia is a multi-language project, and this is by far the best kept version of this article, so it's reasonable to expect foreign editors will come looking at this article to expand the corresponding foreign language article. Using non-commonly used abbreviations which won't be recognized by machine translators makes it needlessly hard for non-english speakers to understand the article.

Letting it run into a second line makes each column substantially larger for no reason. You said you were concerned about viewers only being able to see x many lines with the scrolling format, yet this would make even fewer polls viewable without scrolling.

As to the sortable issue, it seems that just makes it even more easy to fix the table. That code can simply be removed instead, making the table take even fewer bytes to load (which will please Number57.) --4idaho (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll first answer Rrius:

1. It is actually not something that new: the compromise table I proposed is, in structure, very similar to the old version. More similar, at least, than what it was before I reverted back to it; just with an added lead column and some minor differences. As about the possibility of the table being moved to another article should it become too long: go ahead. I never said this was an issue, since I had never talked about the table's length, but about the columns' width and the rows' height.
2. The initial table's text font was small (80%) because I just copy-pasted the model from this article, where a smaller font is necessary in order to include seat projections (which are common in Spanish opinion polls) in the same table than vote projections. I do recognize that it is not the case for Greece (well, not in the 2012-2016 period at least), so I fully agree to remove the "height=42px" thing as well as the 80%-sized font altogether. As for the 90% font, I still prefer it over the 100% one because, the smaller the font, the less work needed for the dates AND the polling firms' names (in case they are long enough, they may also cause problems) to fit their own column (otherwise, they just wrap around and mess up with the rows' starting height). This font (or the 95% one, which for practical effects is very similar) is used in the UK opinion polling article to great effect and with no complains whatsover. The other purpose for it would be aesthetics: in a table where there are so many parties represented and where the width of the table itself is limited to 100%, I believe it is important to save as much space as possible. With a 90%-95%-sized font text, the boxes containing the percentage values don't look as full as they do with a 100%-sized font, which I think looks too big for a table of such characteristics. Smaller fonts means more space. More space means less cluttering and wrapping. This is, however, my opinion, so it is open to interpretation and different thinking. However, a note: I've already presented you some reasons why I find a smaller font better (not much, just 90% or 95%). However, you have not explained why a 100% one would be better, save for saying that other size than that would "hinder people" (and frankly, I still don't realise how a 90% or a 95% font can actually hinder someone; I may understand it with a 80% font, though).
3. As about including the year in the date being of utmost importance... Not that much. Again, those just widens the date column needlessly, and this is something that can't just be fixed by merely shortening the names of the months (i.e. what would happen if there is a polling firm with a long name? I've already seen some issues with Metron Analysis and Kapa Research surveys, which due to both the 100% size of the font and the year-in-the-date proposal make them to inevitably mess up with the rows' height. Abbreviating the polling firms' names would probably solve the issue, but that would be depriving people of a more vital information than the year data, specially if that's a data which is already placed somewhere else). I think it is fine enough to signal the start of a year as it is now. The Next UK general election and the Next Portuguese general election opinion polling tables use this or a similar system. Moreover, your solution looks like would just fully please lazy people: it is not that much of a job to scroll down a bit to see what year it is. How much does it really takes? 1-2 seconds? I've always considered this one of those issues where something would just do more harm than good. As a side note: my (unnecessary) scroll pane has nothing to do with it: if you have to scroll down with it in order to find a specific data, you'll most probably also have to do it without it. Moreover, if scrolling down is what you're complaining about, the scroll pane already does much to avoid such a thing: it allows you to don't need to go to the bottom of the page in order to read whatever Notes section, if any, that there may be (specially for those who have "notes" linking to specific polls). I don't find it essential, though, and it may be removed if people feels like it.

As about with 4idaho, I mostly agree with him, except in the "sortable" part (which is actually the other way around: we don't want sortable columns. I agree with Rrius here) and in the font size issue, which I already explained above why. However, should consensus become finally against me on this issue, I'll accept it. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Where'd the pictures of the leaders of the foremost nationalists parties go?

The Independent Greeks and the Golden Dawn have been missing the images of their respective leaders from the table at the top right of the page for some time now; eventhough, they had pictures that were seemingly fine there before then. What happened? Why did no one bother to fix that glaring admission? I think those images should be returned; not to mention, those same pictures were also on Nikolaos Michaloliakos's (Secretary General of the Golden Dawn) Wikipedia page and that of the Independent Greeks's respectively but were also removed: curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.179.109 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Images have been deleted due to copyright issues, it appears. Take a look a the Greek legislative election, June 2012 history page on July 22. Orgyn (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi label is in dispute by Golden Dawn

That information is even found (and cited) in the side box next to "Ideology" for Golden Dawn's wikipedia page. To describe them as ultranationalist is a lot more enveloping of their ideology, which is especially useful if only one descriptive is used as is the case in the "Background" portion of this page; hence, the "ultranationalist" adjective should remain without the "neo-nazi" partisan propaganda term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.152.207 (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are certainly neo-nazis within the party, but the party has emphasised different aspects of far-right thought. Simply the fact that they are so enthusiastic about Metaxas suggests that it isn't an unconflicted neo-nazism. In general, I think we should avoid using a disputed term (even disputed by the subject, and especially elastic terms, which neo-nazi decidedly is) for a simple reference. At any rate, ultranationalist is at least, if not more accurate as neo-nazi, and I hardly think such a term white-washes the movement. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to dispute this. Take it to the Golden Dawn article. Please stop edit warring on an unrelated page. The Next Greek legislative election article is not the correct place to determine anything about Golden Dawn's ideology. If you believe that Golden Dawn is not a neo-nazi party, Golden Dawn's page is the correct place to discuss that. --4idaho (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "neo-nazi" is also found (and cited, as well) in the side box next to "Ideology", so that can hardly be a valid argument to use one term over the other. Neo-Nazism would be even more enveloping than "Ultranationalist", since this term does not include other aspects of Golden Dawn's ideology such as racism or xenophobia (which are also very present within the party's ideology). Even more, if you want to be truly enveloping, just classify them as "far-right". "Ultranationalist" is a very specific term, which is indeed part of the party's ideology but not the only feature.

By the way, for as long as this discussion is in place I suggest refering the party as just "far-right" until a more definite term consensus is reached. This is to avoid the constant edit wars over it. Impru20 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This was extensively debated and discussed at Golden Dawn's page, and we should use the ideology neo-nazi, which is not only the most descriptive adjective, but is extensively sourced, to a much greater degree than ultranationalist is. I have instead made a request for indefinite semi-protection for this page. Neo-nazi is the consensus reached on the Golden Dawn page, after much painstaking discussion, and this article reflects that. If someone disagrees, they should bring up their argument on the relevant page, not edit war on an unrelated page. --4idaho (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know this issue had been already discussed fully in Golden Dawn's talk page, nor that Neo-Nazism had been established as the party's official ideology. So as it seems, it looks pointless to repeat that discussion here. If Neo-Nazism has already been accepted as a valid term to define the party's ideology, then I don't see why it couldn't be used here. Impru20 (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly my point, I don't agree or disagree personally with anything that's being said, but this is a). not the right article, and b). has already been extensively discussed and debated on the relevant article. --4idaho (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the right article to discuss this. It is one thing to discuss what the primary description should be on a page that discusses the party ideology in detail, another to ask what the adjective should be on a different page. Irrespective, it is far from obvious that the Golden Dawn page uses neo-nazi in priority to other descriptions. The first adjective applied in the top line is "far-right"; many other adjectives are also used. Furthermore, I could not locate this discussion on the Golden Dawn talk page, or using the archive search anyway. I still think it is usually best to use a label or adjective that is not denied by the group in question in a passing reference. 4idaho has not explained why neo-nazi should be preferred to "ultranationalist" or "far-right", but has only made an argument to authority which I do not think is determinative. I hope everyone here agrees both "ultranationalist" and "neo-nazi" can be fairly used to describe Golden Dawn. My point has been that "ultranationalist" is a clearer description, as it makes clear that Golden Dawn is both nationalist and extreme-right wing. "Neo-nazi" generally indicates a view of Aryan supremacy, which is slightly in tension with Greek nationalism. I believe it is time to change the description to "ultranationalist". Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

4idaho may not have done this, but I have. "Ultranationalism" DOES NOT necessarily include racist or xenophobic attitudes (i.e. Mussolini's Italian fascism was ultranationalist, but it wasn't openly xenophobic), yet those are clearly distinct features present in Golden Dawn's ideology. Moreover, ultranationalism can be attributed to both right-wing and left-wing ideologies (Stalin's rule in Russia, anyone?), so I don't understand how it can be specific at all. One of the reasons you use to argue against the use of the "neo-nazi" term is that it indicates a view of Aryan supremacy. According to wikipedia' article on the subject, Neo-Nazism "borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including militant nationalism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and antisemitism", but it is never specified that Aryan supremacy must be a required feature for an ideology to be neo-nazi (even when they are commonly clearly related).

Then, we can argue about which is the best term to define Golden Dawn's ideology, and we could even discuss about if "far-right" is more suiting or not, but clearly, justifying using "ultranationalist" over "neo-nazi" because the first is supposedly more "descriptive", is clearly non-sense, as I have just pointed out. Impru20 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I just said on Gabrielthursday's talk page. Golden Dawn is established as both neo-nazi and ultranationalist on its article. If we're talking about which adjective is more descriptive of Golden Dawn's ideology (as defined on the Golden Dawn article), ultranationalist is clearly a narrower term that doesn't encapsulate as much of Golden Dawn's ideology as neo-nazi.--4idaho (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am happy to lay this controversy down, since I clearly do not reflect consensus at this point. I would, however, suggest that American neo-nazism, of which there is plenty, is far more ethnically-focussed than nationalistic. The same could be said of neo-nazism in Canada. I would not say that neo-nazism can always be described as nationalistic in the ordinary sense of the word given that it is so often vocally opposed to the ethnic makeup and the social, moral and political order of the countries in which it operates. Golden Dawn's partial embrace of Greek Orthodoxy seems out of sync with its neo-nazi influences; likewise its open admiration for Metaxas who, whatever his failings, was no Nazi. It would appear to me that Golden Dawn had strong nazi tendencies in its early years, but has become a more mainstream (whatever that can mean in this context) ultranationalist group in recent years. I think ultranationalism is pretty clearly associated with xenophobia, by the way. Gabrielthursday (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Legislative and European polls

I wonder, seeing as how some pollsters seem to don't specify whether their polls are intended for a legislative election or for the 2014 European election (such as Alco, Marc, Kapa Research or Metron Analysis), isn't it possible that they are intended for BOTH of them? They show results which, in most cases, are compared with former 2013 legislative polls (thus suggesting that they are legislative polls). However, it's a little over a month for the EP, yet those same pollsters don't seem to be making any EP poll (like, for example, Palmos Analysis or Pulse RC which DO publish separate polls depending on the election type). Isn't it weird that there is no recent Metron Analysis poll for the EP and not even a single poll of Alco and Kapa Research indicating so? As an example, in Spain there is a pollster, Sigma-2, whose European polls have been traditionally treated by the same pollster as both an European and a general election poll, so maybe this theory isn't as crazy as it sounds. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

They do specify, I sent you a message about which Greek words are which. :) --4idaho (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of N/A template

@4idaho: On the reasons you have pointed out, I get what you do mean. However, I should highlight to you the difference between a data not being shown because of the pollster not showing it, and a data not being shown because of the party itself not existing. Of course, it is not the same for a party to don't get a data percentage because the pollster regards it as too insignificant to do so (yet the party does indeed exist) and a pollster not showing that data because it is impossible to show data for not existing parties. I believe we should highlight that difference in the tables too, and that is the way I was actively using the N/A template until now. An empty space mean that the data is not available but the party still exists, with a N/A template standing as a "no-party to show data about" sign.

Furthermore, there is no special splicitily stated requirement that this template should be used everytime a data is not available, and I believe its use is more useful the way I put it, covering more issues with little effort. Your thoughts? Impru20 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the shorthand and what its used for. n/a:

It is used to indicate when information in a certain table cell is not provided, either because it does not apply to a particular case in question or because the answer is not available.

(Emphasis mine.)

This is, in essence, what it exists for. And I don't think it has any of the implications you're thinking it does. It's just a shorthand for tables that means that the data isn't available. It doesn't imply that its not available for any specific reason. --4idaho (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

According to that definition, your interpretation is as equally valid as mine. See how it doesn't imply something is not available for any specific reason, as you say, but equally, it does not imply that is should be used for any reason). That said, from the definition you put in I can equally put the emphasis on other point:

It is used to indicate when information in a certain table cell is not provided, either because it does not apply to a particular case in question or because the answer is not available.

As you see, it leaves the window open for interpretation and for varying possibilities, and what I'm stating is that such a template can be more useful the way I had been using it, which is basically, to help differentiate at which points parties do exist and at which points they don't. --> i.e. it can be useful for the reader to easily check how To Potami did not exist until March 2014 (shown as a string of n/a templates up until that date). I'm just trying to use that template in the most useful way possible, seeing how such a template is not even compulsory or necessary. Impru20 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No no no, you're missing the point. Of course N/A leaves different interpretations open. Its supposed to. That's also what I've been trying to explain. N/A does not carry any implication as to why the cell is blank.

N/A does not communicate that the party doesn't exist. If you think it does, you're wrong. People could just as well assume that perhaps POTAMI was just not considered relevant up until that point, just like what is happening with MPT now in Portugal, or Golden Dawn ahead of the 2012 elections. And, vise versa, people won't infer anything from the cell being blank, either. Leaving the cell blank does not somehow communicate that the pollster considered DIMAR too small to poll, either.

N/A doesn't infer either possibility, or any other possibility. It does not carry an implication. It's just a shorthand that means data isn't available for that cell, and that the fact that it is not applicable, not available, ect., and that is why the cell does not contain data. It doesn't carry any implication as to why that is the case. You are inferring things from its use that no one else will. --4idaho (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that it's fine if you want to try to find a way to communicate that POTAMI didn't exist, and DIMAR is declining into irrelevance. I'd suggest simply writing about it in the article, and not trying to squeeze it into the table. If you did want to, however, I wouldn't object. I'm just saying you need to find a different way to do it. Because that shorthand simply doesn't mean what you think it does, and people won't understand what you're trying to communicate. --4idaho (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the cell blank does not somehow communicate that the pollster considered a party too small to poll, either. But you forget that leaving the cell blank has been common practice for opinion polling tables in Wikipedia (I ignore the ones created by myself, of course). Either that, or a dash symbol (which by itself does not mean anything, either). So it must communicate something, if it has been already used in the past.

And the party not existing previous to a specific date already affects the table, because you would have a column full of cells with no data shown in them, something which is noticeable to the common eye. That is way I'm so keen in having it reflected there, not for the sake of squeezing it into the table.

That said, I believe it can be solved by just stating in the text paragraph introducing readers to the table what the N/A template is used for and what blank spaces are used for in there; just as it is explained that the most voted party will be shown in bold, that it will have its background colored in a lighter shade of its party color, or the explanation for the 'Lead' column. I did not initially explain the meaning of blank spaces or the placing of the N/A template because I deemed its use would be too obvious. However, if it generates a problem of 'lack of communication', it can be solved by just transmitting to the reader what it tries to communicate. Impru20 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaving the cell blank does not somehow communicate that the pollster considered a party too small to poll, either. But you forget that leaving the cell blank has been common practice for opinion polling tables in Wikipedia (I ignore the ones created by myself, of course). Either that, or a dash symbol (which by itself does not mean anything, either). So it must communicate something, if it has been already used in the past. But maybe yes, it may not communicate that to everyone.

The party not existing previous to a specific date already affects the table, because you would have a column full of cells showing no data, something which is noticeable to the common eye. That is way I'm so keen in having it reflected there, not for the sake of squeezing it into the table.

That said, I believe it can be solved by just stating in the text paragraph introducing readers to the table what the N/A template is used for and what blank spaces are used for in there; just as it is explained that the most voted party will be shown in bold, that it will have its background colored in a lighter shade of its party color, or the explanation for the 'Lead' column. I did not initially explain the meaning of blank spaces or the placing of the N/A template because I deemed its use would be too obvious. However, if it generates a problem of 'lack of communication', it can be solved by just transmitting to the reader what it tries to communicate. Impru20 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you choose to do, but you can't decide that a word means something it doesn't. Leaving a paragraph to explain the situation would be perfect; but then simply make all the n/a cells blank, or use n/a in all of the blank cells, or use dashes, or use whatever you want. But you can't change the definition of n/a to mean whatever you want it to mean, no more so than you could leave a paragraph explaining that every time you use the word elephant you really mean cow. It has an actual definition. A meaning. You can't simply decide it means something it doesn't. --4idaho (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Something like this ---> Poll results are listed in the table below in reverse chronological order, showing the most recent first. The highest percentage figure in each polling survey is displayed in bold, and the background shaded in the leading party's colour. In the instance that there is a tie, then no figure is shaded. The lead column on the right shows the percentage-point difference between the two parties with the highest figures. Poll results use the date the survey's fieldwork was done, as opposed to the date of publication. However, if such date is unknown, the date of publication will be given instead. If a specific poll does not show a data figure for a party, the party's cell corresponding to that poll will be shown empty. In the instance of a specific party not existing at the time of the poll's fieldwork, a n/a template will be shown instead.

I believe it's clear and simple enough. Impru20 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And on your comment: the difference between your example of elephant/cow and the definition of n/a is that, unlike the definition of elephant, the one of n/a is not that specific, but as we said, open to interpretation. As it is:

It is used to indicate when information in a certain table cell is not provided, either because it does not apply to a particular case in question or because the answer is not available.

In this case, the N/A template, as I put it to you before, and with the added description noting people about the difference between blank cells and cells using the template, would very well enter this definition. either because it does not apply to a particular case in question can be applied here, as the particular cases in question here where information would not apply would be those where a specified party, at the time of a poll's fieldwork, does not exist. Impru20 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, n/a is not specific. That's what I've been saying this entire time. It's still its definition. You can't make it a word with a specific meaning just by wishing it. I'm fine with what you're doing, in general, but you can not simply change n/a to mean whatever you want it to. Use it appropriately, or use something else. --4idaho (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, removed N/A altogether in order to prevent confusion. Substituted it for a more straightforward solution. Impru20 (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! --4idaho (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

participating parties

the greek page lists 19 participating parties, this page lists 16. my greek is too bad to add the missing three on this page.--82.113.106.21 (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Btw, there isn't an official list by the Interior Ministry of participating parties or something? So that we can use just one link for all parties instead of going one by one. It's less than two weeks to go and I can't find anything. Impru20 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

i did not find an official list either. the greek wikipedia--page now lists 26 parties--82.113.121.123 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to cut this section down twice, and have been reverted both times. The first revert claimed it was needed to identify the alliances running – fair enough, and I cut it down to that. Now it's been reverted again, but this time with no rationale other than "take it to talk". So, what is the objection? The list is pointless and ugly in its current format – surely we can do better. Number 57 13:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Background section - too long?

Recently I expanded the background section with 11,587 bytes of additional context info, but as a response to initial objection from Impru20, at the same time also removed 7,730 bytes of content not considered to be "contextual summary". So at its 9:52 version of today, it only grew with 3,857 bytes. Now PanchoS responded by supporting a continued removal (through a third removal of content), despite of my recently implemented shortening, which is why we now need to debate and find consensus for a reasonable solution, here at the talkpage.

PanchoS explained in the edit summary of the removal: "We want to condense the background here rather than further stretch it to a full duplication of the indicated main article. Also, the Grexit controversy has been dominant in the pre-election debate, so it shou".

My response is, that I am not objected to condense it further, but that I insist we need to re-add my removed content, as it provided contextual election info with a far higher amount of quality compared to the lines that I removed. Please note, that the pre-election Grexit controversy also was shortly covered by my "Financial market reaction" subsection. However, only by 1 line, instead of the 14 line length section that it replaced. In my point of view, there is no need to explain in detail who said what in January to explain the "election context". Main point about the "Grexit" issue, is that "financial markets" made a response when elections were called - believing there is a presense of 25% risk of a Grexit if the election polls of early January will be equal to the final election result on January 25. This is enough to mention in the background chapter.

On the other hand, my opinion is, that we need the background chapter at the same time to elaborate more in detail about the "third bailout-package" and "bailout programme" context, as this is pretty much the main topic of the election (and quiet difficult to understand). So here I chose to expand the sections, with those important extra details. The background is pretty difficult to explain by very few lines, because the matter is quiet complicated. In example, it is important to mention no Greek political party (neither ND nor Syriza) plan to say yes to a third additional bailout package (as both parties plan to cover the additional financial needs of Greece in 2015, by selling a new series of 7-year and 10-year bonds at the private market - after having been successful also to sell €6.1bn of new government bonds to private creditors in 2014), and even if ND is re-elected as government it will still lead to an exit of the Greek bailout programme one year ahead of schedule, by the end of February 2015 (with a less strict ECCL precautionary package replacing it). These kind of details can only be understood, if it is explained in the "third bailout package" subsection, what Greece has been offered and under what circumstances, which is why I think its important to include (as reflected by the lines I added to the section). I am not opposed to condense it further, but we need first to revert the section back to todays 9:52-version, and then work to further condense it starting with that. Please let me know, if you can accept this, as per my explained arguments. Danish Expert (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As no objection was posted to my above compromise proposal (restoring the chapter to its 15 January version - followed by subsequent work to condense it further), I have now - after one week of waiting - restored it to my previous 15 January version. Danish Expert (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Opnion polls graph

Hi. Not much point to this graph if there is no legend to the colours. I tried to copy from here, but can't quite figure out the start and end points for the legend. Any help welcome. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And it would be great to break the list of parties into three colums to look neater. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Impru20: Any chance you could add a key to the graph (and get rid of the post-January months)? Cheers, Number 57 11:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. As for removing the post-January months, it is intended for the graph to look like this. The Greek legislature theoretically would have spanned from 2012 to 2016, ending earlier as a result of the snap election (but nonetheless, it could have spanned until 2016). This is done as such in order for people to be able to reasonably compare different opinion polling graphs of different elections, since all of them would span the same amount of time (roughly 4 years), independently of when the election is finally held. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Impru20: Apologies if I'm being blind, but I still can't see a legend at Greek legislative election, 2015#Opinion polls. Number 57 12:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh! There! I thought you meant here. Will do it now. Impru20 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Good stuff! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Legend issue and misinterpretation

@Bob.v.R: I think you may have got confused with this. This section talks about a legend, but it refers to the Opinion polling graph (this) which lacked a legend but now has one. Your edits are not bad, but they are entirely useless, because there's already a table just below the parliament diagram showing the number of seats. The same table also shows each party's colour, but there also a table above (in the "outgoing parliament" section) showing party's colours, as well as the Opinion polling graph having a legend of its own. As said, your edit is not bad in itself, but it is not only useless, but repetitive.

Do not engage in edit war. Please, discuss the issue here. So far, talk page has not discussed the edits you are doing. Impru20 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see below: the new discussion item called 'Additions'. Thank you. Bob.v.R (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

electoral system at constituency level

I understand how the seats are awarded to the parties nationwide, but how do those seats 'rain down' to the constituency level? The national bonus also affects the results at constituency level, ND outpolled Syriza in Evrou, Messinias, Pellas and Pierias, but Syriza got more seats there.----Bancki (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Chart on right has error

For "Last Election" in the chart on the right, the percentage for ND (second party) cannot be correct mathematically. It must be about 48% or 49%. Someone who knows more about this election and about Wikipedia than I do should fix it. GattoDanny (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ND obtained 29.7% of the vote in June 2012, not 48% or 49% (check here). Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if there's some confusion remember as explained in the article, the Greek legislative elections are only partially proportional due to the 50 bonus seats for the party who win the plurality of votes. Also there's a minimum threshold of 3# and even without a threshold there's still opportunity for wasted votes. So although they won 29.7% of the vote, they got 129 seats/300. But I don't know where the 48 or 49% come from anyway. If you're counting 129/300 they had 43%, if you're counting 129/250 (which makes no sense), they got 51.6%. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Additions

To this article I have added two items. The first item is the legend for the overview of the physical seats in parliament. I hope that the reason is obvious: when the reader looks at this overview, there is no point into forcing him/her to try and find elsewhere in the article which color correspond to which party. The figure should be, in this respect, self explanatory. The second item is the quick summary, in numbers, of the number of seats for each party. This is accommodating the reader who does not look for details like party A is increased by two seats, or party B goes down 0.03%, but just wants to see how many seats in parliament each party has. This information is also contained in the detailed table, but some readers may prefer a concise overview. Bob.v.R (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bob.v.R: I will repeat what I said above. Your argument is not supported, because the parliament diagram is shown in the same section than the election results table. The reader is not being forced to look elsewhere in the article, because results, party colours, etc are just below the diagram. You want to know how many seats has a party? Fine, just go to the "Results" section, to the "Seats" column in the table and check the party. What you say would be valid if those were in separate sections, but it isn't the case here. And I can't understand other things, like why you have put ND first and PASOK third (SYRIZA won the election, so in any case they should be first). I don't know if your edits could qualify as WP:UNDUE, as you are giving undue weight to the seat awarding, repeating data already available in the same section.

Furthermore, you have based your edits "on the talk page", yet in the talk page there was nothing discussing this until now. Thus, I would request you reverting your edits to the last consensus version until this discussion is over. Impru20 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The legend table which I have added is a direct support to the figure, because it is placed to the left of it. And in the table the order of the parties is the same as in the figure. So I really think that this is much more convenient for the reader than forcing the reader to seek the interpretation of the colors somewhere else. About the summary table with the number of parliament seats for each party, I agree with you that they are not yet in the correct order. I will correct this now. I hope that for the moment we can keep both my additions in the article, giving other users the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Bob.v.R (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bob.v.R: Again, there is no need for a "direct support" to the figure, because you have the "results" table just below. Not on other section of the article, but just below. One thing is to make things more convenient for readers, and another thing is posting the very same information a thousand times throughout the article. It is really not that much of a work for the reader, specially because the reader would actually seek the actual results (that is, the "results" table) and would see them anyway. Furthermore, if they somehow got lost, you would notice that there is already an infobox at the beginning of the article just showing that very same info (seats and colors).

I don't think you are being fair by saying that "we could keep your additions". My opinion doesn't matter on this? I tried to delete your edits back to the consensus version explaining the reasoning behind it, and you answered me that they were not to be removed and that I should "see the talk page". So far, the talk page did not have any discussion on this (so I did not have anything to see, actually, because your edits were not based in any discussion, past or present, before the one we are having now). No other election article uses the legend format you are trying to impose, and your edits could constitute a violation of WP:UNDUE, as you are giving undue weight to a part of the data (seat allocation) within a section of the article that already shows that data (depth of detail is good as long as you are not deepening too much nor repeating info a lot of times).

I would leave a pair of days at most to see if anyone enters the discussion, but after that, if nothing changes and no strong support can be given to your edit, I will remove it. Of course, I'm not counting other possible editors that could decide to revert it earlier. This seems a decent compromise. Impru20 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To be more specific: let us wait, I propose, until 5 Febr to give others the opportunity to add their view. I am a bit disappointed for being under attack here for placing, in my opinion, two very reader friendly additions. I am still convinced that certain readers will appreciate them. I have been looking for examples in articles where categorising colors are not explained in the figure itself, because this is apparently what you propose. I could not find such an example. Bob.v.R (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bob.v.R: You're not under attack. But understand that you reverted my edits twice on the basis of a false affirmation (that your edit was legitimized because of the talk page, which was not true) and without actually trying to open a discussion in the talk page about it until I did it; as well as now refusing to revert to the consensus version of the article (which I may understand, because you want to push your edit forward, but it is not polite since it is disputed). It is not whether you are convinced of it or not. I'm pretty much convinced that if we repeat the election results a thousand times throughout the entire article, readers will eventually notice them, but it is actually something needless. Reader friendly additions are encouraged (I myself do them a lot of times) but you must understand that reader friendly additions are done for those cases that they are actually needed. Here they are not needed, and you are adding them for the sake of adding them, which is not the purpose, either.

"I have been looking for examples in articles where categorising colors are not explained in the figure itself"

It is a matter of searching. Examples:

All Italian general elections.

All Spanish general elections.

French legislative elections showing a diagram chart (not all of them have one).

Previous Greek legislative elections do show categorising colors along the figure, but please notice that this is what we talked before: in those articles, the figure is not in the same section than the election results table.

Just to say a few examples.

I'll wait until Feb 5. If no strong support for it can be gathered, I'll remove it, because it is needless, repetitive as well as somewhat ugly-looking in the case of the table you added (because of having different widths, even being too wide to show just a seat number that is already shown in the table below, anyway). Impru20 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just spotted this section, having removed the table and key independently yesterday. I have to say I agree entirely with Impru20 – the table for the seats is completely unnecessary, and the key is also not really warranted given that the graph is right next to the results table that contains the party colours. One thing that I have done to improve the readability of the section is to move the diagram to the right of the table, so they are both sitting in line with each other, rather than having the diagram sitting on top, which leaves a lot of pointless whitespace either side of it. Number 57 10:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A small addition; I've inserted the diagram within the table itself in the way you can see now, because what you did of putting it to the right looked weird in some computer resolutions. Furthermore, I have had some other problems with those diagrams before, so to solve both yours and Bob's issues, I resorted to (as I said) insert the diagram within the table itself so that they are both unequivocally connected. It also solves any possible resolution conflicts with the table that a lone, separate image would cause. Impru20 (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A reply to an earlier remark of Impru20: it is true that I reverted you twice. The first time was just before I started this discussion (head "Additions"), the second time was after I had started this discussion (time stamp 18:01, 1 February 2015). I started this discussion immediately after I reverted for the first time. So I don't agree with the remark that I didn't open a discussion.

User Number 57 states that the extra table with seat numbers is unneccessary. I would like to point out that there is also the issue of reader friendliness. With the extra table removed, a reader who just wants to see how many seats each party has received in this election, is now forced to dive into the detailed table to find this out.

Impru20 stated that the (removed) extra table was somewhat ugly-looking. I agree that the 'looks' of this table still needed improvement (which is now not possible, because Number 57 removed the table).

About the figure with the seats, with legend removed, I would think that the figure is better understandable (in the case that the legend is removed again) when in the table's sidebar only those parties are colored that are present in this figure with the seats. Bob.v.R (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

About the table that I originally added, it was said that it didn't look very nice. Below is an example of a table combining number of seats and 'drawing' of the parliament. This should look better. Bob.v.R (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

SYRIZA	Nea Dimokratia (ND)	Golden Dawn (XA)	To Potami	Communist Party of Greece (KKE)	Independent Greece (ANEL)	PASOK
	File:NDlogo blue fonto.png
149	76	17	17	15	13	13
KKE   SYRIZA   PASOK   To Potami   ND   ANEL   XA

You reverted my first edit at 17:52, 1 February 2015, you opening this discussion on 18:01, 1 February 2015. The problem is that at 17:52, you told me that I should see the talk page, when at 17:52 there was not only any consensus or agreement on the matter, but there wasn't even a discussion about it, which you started at 18:01 (I now see that you actually started it before I noticed you about it at 18:06, so I concede on that point; yet the problem of you redirecting me to the talk page when there was nothing about it remains).

But well, this is actually irrelevant, since it is more about the manners it has been done and not about the content, which is the actual relevant matter here. You don't seem to get the point Number 57 and myself are defending here. It is not about 'reader friendliness'. I'm all in favour of reader friendliness, as long as it is deemes necessary or useful. The issue here is that what you propose is not necessary at all, because with the current edit (the parliament diagram inserted in the same table) there is no way for readers to somehow ignore the table results just below. Not only that, but keep in mind that this is an election article, and in election articles what readers usually look at are the results themselves (that is, the table showing the full results). The parliament diagram is just a mere complement to the table, not the actual main thing.

But in any case, there is already the infobox to show a brief summary on the main parties results and seat allocation just at the head of the article, so your table is entirely unnecessary, because the infobox already fulfills that purpose. A reader that doesn't want to be "forced to dive into the detailed table to find this out" (probably a lazy reader, but let us guess that it is the case) would probably not even scroll down the article to see the "Results" section, and would just look at the infobox. However, readers that do indeed enter the article in order to check the "Results" section wouldn't find any need for your table, since what they would be searching at would be the in-depth results table itself. Impru20 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The proposed table above is still completely unnecessary – it's very clear in the results table how many seats each party won. Plus not being able to show some party logos because of copyright just makes it look unfinished. Number 57 14:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It is correct that the information about the number of seats can (with some effort) also be found in the infobox, but a compact and clear table just supplying the number of seats would have been a reader friendly addition. I assume that most of the users agree that Wikipedia should accommodate many different types of readers, including the 'detailed reader' and the 'lazy reader'. Apart from this, again I want to state that if the legend as proposed by me would be refused (which seems the situation at the moment), then the parliament diagram would be better understandable if the side bar in the detailed table contains colors only for those parties that actually have seats. Bob.v.R (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say in the infobox, I said in the results table, which now occupies the same space as the superfluous table you added in. Number 57 18:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless one is an extremely lazy person, it takes little to no effort to check the seat count in the infobox, which is actually very clearly indicated. If we are going to talk about effort, it actually takes more effort to scroll the article all the way down to the "Results" section than to check the infobox itself. One thing is that Wikipedia should accommodate many different types of readers, but another thing is repeating the same info a lot of times, which as I said could enter into conflict with WP:UNDUE. Using your argument, I could say "Yes, it also takes some effort for readers to check the election results in the election table. Why don't we put them everywhere across the article a thousand times, so that the reader can much more easily find them?" No. There is a section for each thing. What you propose is a good idea for, let's say, an article in which a reference to the 2015 Greek election results is made, and you want to add a brief summary of the seat allocation without showing the full results. Adding it within the "Results" section of the 2015 Greek election article itself, which already shows the results both in the infobox and in the in-depth results table, is unnecessary.

About your last sentence, I don't find the logic behind it. I simply can't understand how someone would actually try to locate within the diagram a party having 0 seats. Obviously only a party having seats would be shown there, and if in the table a party is shown with "0" seats, whatever its color may be, just don't try to find it in the diagram because you won't find it there. This is further helped by the fact that, usually (and specially with the Greek electoral system) parties winning seats are located in the upper section of the table, since those are the ones having the most votes. Impru20 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

To me it seems strange that you defend making the interpretation of the parliament diagram as complex as possible for the reader, instead of helping the reader. An article is about informing the reader, not about testing his IQ. The list of parties in itself does not have a clear visual separation between parties with and without seats, it can only be seen from the column with the number of seats. So to find out which party is meant by the red dots you direct the reader to the side bar, to find five or six possible candidates and from there your reader has to switch to the specific column with the seats to figure out the line where the separation lies between parties with or without seats, after which he can finally figure out which party is meant (if he still wants to know by that time). And all this because you seem to insist on not including a legend and changing nothing in the table. Bob.v.R (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the parliament diagram: also see the Spanish, German, Greec and Portugese articles. Concerning the table with the number of seats: also see the Servo-Kroatian (sh) article. Bob.v.R (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see the only thing you do is repeating the same thing once and once again, so I'm not going to explain you again what I just told you. The argument is up above, other users agree with it, and there are more 'cons' than 'pros' in your edits that has finally decided it not being added. I'm not even going to repeat that it could potentially violate WP:UNDUE; just read what we and Number 57 said, and that's it. Seriously, I don't know such an insistence. You are creating complications out of situations where there are no complication at all, and you seem to don't read what we actually say, so let's settle the issue here. Impru20 (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have clearly explained here what mental exercises you expect from your reader, if he wants to find out which party is meant by the red dots. The fact that you now choose to ignore it, and refuse to discuss the issue any further, doesn't make my explanation incorrect. Your opinion that "there are more 'cons' than 'pros' in your edits" is indeed your opinion, not a proven fact. Further, you state now that 'other users' agree with you, when it is very clear to see that until now for only one other user this is the case. Bob.v.R (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is making a visual distinction between parties with and without seats, then it would be easier either to distinguish the parties with seats in the current table by formatting (for example, by bolding their rows), or insert a header row saying, for example, "Parties below seat threshold" in between the two. The redundant table is not therefore rendered necessary by that consideration. With regards to the Spanish, German, Greek, and Portuguese wikis, they position the diagram in different places where a separate key makes more sense, but the table on this article is colour-coded and situated immediately below the diagram, thus already serving as a perfectly adequate colour key, like Impru20 and Number 57 have pointed out, so I agree with them that I don't see the point.--Nizolan (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on your proposal, it actually makes sense and I like it. That is, to make a distinction between parties above threshold and those below (I like how this is done for German or Swedish elections; I'm adding it right now). Impru20 (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Yeah, Bob already did it. I'd put a lighter shade of grey, such as the one in German articles, but otherwise, it looks perfect. Impru20 (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek legislative election, January 2015. 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/20141114111915/http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A0704/PressReleases/A0704_SEL84_DT_QQ_03_2014_01_E_EN.pdf to http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A0704/PressReleases/A0704_SEL84_DT_QQ_03_2014_01_E_EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125051055/http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/58735 to http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/58735

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) 09:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek legislative election, January 2015. 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/20141229153222/http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/early-elections-for-greece-after-parliament-fails-to-pick-president-a-43736464.html to http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/early-elections-for-greece-after-parliament-fails-to-pick-president-a-43736464.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130217164234/http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c=112,dt=12.06.2004,id=20721500 to http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D112%2Cdt%3D12.06.2004%2Cid%3D20721500

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) 09:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nikólas Michaloliákos.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nikos Michaloliakos - Golden Dawn party leader.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)