A news item involving 2008 Romanian parliamentary election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 December 2008. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Chamber seat total should be 333: 18 seats minorities 315 seats for the four parties that made the threshold:
(for 315=244+71 see http://www.becparlamentare2008.ro/rezul/Anexa%206A.pdf : table on page 1-2) -- Bancki ( talk) 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
problem solved: "Both PD-L and PSD+PC won 114 seats each under the proportional allocation of Chamber seats; however, in Arad county PD-L was entitled to four seats but won five single-member constituency seats by absolute majority, which brought its total to 115 seats - one more than PSD+PC" [1] -- Bancki ( talk) 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
People, why does this article look as awful as it does? Don't you picture you could make life easier for other editors by adhering to at least a minimal standard of quality? Also, don't you think it would be worth mentioning that this is the first suffrage in which the electoral system was changed to mixed member proportional representation from the party-list proportional representation, and the first one to feature sub- county unit electoral colleges? Dahn ( talk) 05:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The description of mixed member proportional representation does not reflect the current system used in Romania:
See (in Romanian) [2] for some criticism: a guy that ranked 6th in his constituency won in this case. I'll add a section to the article once I gather enough references. Pcap ping 16:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We need more details here, although the extended version added by User:Bancki was long but still incomplete, and the tone was bit too textbook-like. Compare with South_Australian_state_election,_2006#Electoral_system (a FA). Things that need to be added:
I don't know who came up with the infobox, but it's absolute overkill. In my settings, it takes up more than half of the page in width, and most of the info there is redundant, if not completely irrelevant. Does anyone really need to understand what Stolojan or Geoana look like in this article? (Btw, two if not all of those pictures are most likely copyright violations.) Do we really need to know what constituencies the partly leaders ran in, an info which can be passed into a flowing text in the actual article? Is there any point to having (roughly) the same results in both the infobox and the template? Does the pie chart or whatever it's called really need to be the size of a small house?
I know, inoboxes are enjoyable, but they serve a limited purpose. They are not there to replace articles, they are certainly not there for slowly moving the entire article to. I for one think that the more limited their use the better, but, whatever your generic opinion is, I'm sure you will admit that this infobox and a few others (coincidentally, almost all having to do with Romania) are the only ones to have degenerated into this mushy stuff.
And, dear editors, would it kill you to abide by the WP:MOS when writing an article? Would it kill you to turn embedded links into references using one of the many formats we have around? Would it impair your vital functions to use diacritics (which, I'm tired of saying it, are found at the top of any editing window, in the "Latin" scroll item, right below where it says "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.")? And would you please consider reading WP:OVERLINK? Dahn ( talk) 07:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone actually describe the process which is followed in a constituency in which no candidate has 50% of vote? How is the winner determined? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
the results are different from ones in the pdf indicated as source, what you doing??-- 79.49.21.248 ( talk) 10:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A news item involving 2008 Romanian parliamentary election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 December 2008. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Chamber seat total should be 333: 18 seats minorities 315 seats for the four parties that made the threshold:
(for 315=244+71 see http://www.becparlamentare2008.ro/rezul/Anexa%206A.pdf : table on page 1-2) -- Bancki ( talk) 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
problem solved: "Both PD-L and PSD+PC won 114 seats each under the proportional allocation of Chamber seats; however, in Arad county PD-L was entitled to four seats but won five single-member constituency seats by absolute majority, which brought its total to 115 seats - one more than PSD+PC" [1] -- Bancki ( talk) 11:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
People, why does this article look as awful as it does? Don't you picture you could make life easier for other editors by adhering to at least a minimal standard of quality? Also, don't you think it would be worth mentioning that this is the first suffrage in which the electoral system was changed to mixed member proportional representation from the party-list proportional representation, and the first one to feature sub- county unit electoral colleges? Dahn ( talk) 05:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The description of mixed member proportional representation does not reflect the current system used in Romania:
See (in Romanian) [2] for some criticism: a guy that ranked 6th in his constituency won in this case. I'll add a section to the article once I gather enough references. Pcap ping 16:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We need more details here, although the extended version added by User:Bancki was long but still incomplete, and the tone was bit too textbook-like. Compare with South_Australian_state_election,_2006#Electoral_system (a FA). Things that need to be added:
I don't know who came up with the infobox, but it's absolute overkill. In my settings, it takes up more than half of the page in width, and most of the info there is redundant, if not completely irrelevant. Does anyone really need to understand what Stolojan or Geoana look like in this article? (Btw, two if not all of those pictures are most likely copyright violations.) Do we really need to know what constituencies the partly leaders ran in, an info which can be passed into a flowing text in the actual article? Is there any point to having (roughly) the same results in both the infobox and the template? Does the pie chart or whatever it's called really need to be the size of a small house?
I know, inoboxes are enjoyable, but they serve a limited purpose. They are not there to replace articles, they are certainly not there for slowly moving the entire article to. I for one think that the more limited their use the better, but, whatever your generic opinion is, I'm sure you will admit that this infobox and a few others (coincidentally, almost all having to do with Romania) are the only ones to have degenerated into this mushy stuff.
And, dear editors, would it kill you to abide by the WP:MOS when writing an article? Would it kill you to turn embedded links into references using one of the many formats we have around? Would it impair your vital functions to use diacritics (which, I'm tired of saying it, are found at the top of any editing window, in the "Latin" scroll item, right below where it says "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.")? And would you please consider reading WP:OVERLINK? Dahn ( talk) 07:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone actually describe the process which is followed in a constituency in which no candidate has 50% of vote? How is the winner determined? Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
the results are different from ones in the pdf indicated as source, what you doing??-- 79.49.21.248 ( talk) 10:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)