Talk:2012 Abkhazian parliamentary election

Parliamentary

a parliamentary system is assumed when you have a parliamentary election, quite logically. Efforts to the contrary need supporting evidence to say so, i check the WP page and there was nothing there. (though Kyrgyz could be similiar)

Google is a very deficient tool (sa to how editors can cite it as a sign of page moves i dont know ;)) Cant find anything on the PM process, where did thatinfo come from (must be somewhere)Lihaas (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just about every polity in the world has a parliament/legislature --- that doesn't mean there are only Parliamentary systems. Abkhazia has a powerful President and there hasn't been a single instance where a Prime Minister was elected by Parliament. sephia karta | dimmi 13:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine and im not dobting you but can you provide a RS source? becasue the WP page is deficient.

I agree that the description of the political system of Abkhazia needs to be discussed, with sources, but at Politics of Abkhazia, not here.sephia karta | dimmi 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing on the results are bvery poor. and RJFF (a regular on all electiona rticles like me) said as much.Lihaas (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me which statemnents you find poorly sourced?sephia karta | dimmi 20:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The candidate box and verifiabbility.Lihaas (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? The candidates and results are referenced in the sentence leading up to the table. There are further references in the section Abkhazian_parliamentary_election,_2012#Candidates. This is not exactly controversial material. sephia karta | dimmi 10:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion on your and RJFF's talk pages, and realised you might mean specifically the winners of the second round run-offs. I was holding out with adding a reference until the vote and percentage figures would be made public, but have added a reference now. Does this address your concerns with regards to the table? sephia karta | dimmi 10:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Singular election

As per all articles the election is singuilar because it is an election to one body...ALL election do so from seperate constituencies but the wider election is to one bodyLihaas (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Has that been established anywhere as policy? That we cannot to refer to elections in the body of an article? Because to me it seems to fly in the face of using the most common english form. sephia karta | dimmi 21:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Precedence and consensus. Youre welcome to start a new dsicussion if you want to change consensus (As is your right)./ I believe its been over a year since. Also see National electoral calendar 2012 list.Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please tell me where this consensus was established? And what exactly should I see on the National electoral calendar 2012 list? (It doesn't cover terminology.) sephia karta | dimmi 10:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Election to one body is by precedent singular. We discussed on the national calendar for 2010 or 2011.

Nope, can't find it there.sephia karta | dimmi 23:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see the title of this article itself. it says election singular, which is what the lead should replicate(Lihaas (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)).

The title is descriptive, so WP:LEADSENTENCE actually discourages literal replication in the lead sentence. (See also the 2011 Mississippi River Floods example.) sephia karta | dimmi 23:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits eplained

1. [1] the second part is stating the obvious readers can decide for themselves. Further theres nothing cited that says at most third it just happened to be so. (and thus deceptive that it follows "can register...")
2. [2] rerun should be below overview as its a result and after the whole electoral process
3. [3] the changes to the first para mention no source nor a reason
4. [4] if the source is on the change then it should be tagged to the change not the para.
5. [5] as asked the entire table needs verifiability which the 2 other editors dont get.(Lihaas (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)).

1. Have you read the reference? It explicitly says that political parties cannot register candidates in more than a third of constituencies. It does indeed logically follow that this is 11, but readability is increased if we do the math for the readers.
2. So by that logic the overview should be the very first subsection of 'Result', also preceding 'First round' and 'Second round'? I think readability is best served by putting the table at the end (we could rename it summary instead of overview), but I don't feel strongly about it.
3. The changes are a precision of the previous version, they are backed up by the same reference (at the end of that paragraph).
4. The change is indeed backed up by that particular source, but it also covers material in the rest of the paragraph. I think this is unproblematic per WP:INTEGRITY. Let me repeat what I said above: this is not exactly controversial material, so while everything should be backed up by references, this needn't be done word for word.
5. I'm sorry, I still don't understand. What do you mean by 'the entire table'? sephia karta | dimmi 23:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abkhazian parliamentary election, 2012. 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/20121011061504/http://apsnypress.info/cik/5704.html to http://apsnypress.info/cik/5704.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304213145/http://apsnypress.info/news/5824.html to http://apsnypress.info/news/5824.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)