Talk:Slovenian presidential election, 2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Slovenia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Tracking poll[edit]

Hi, I'm looking at the opinion polls in the presidential election article. Mladina's survey is a tracking poll, so it's a different kind than the others listed. Maybe it would be better to exclude it from the main table and mention it later in a prose format? Like "During the campaing, Mladina/Ninamedia were running a tracking poll that showed ..." What do you think? --Tone 20:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes sense to me. If you have an idea of how to put it into prose, go ahead. Also, would you mind if I moved this whole discussion to the article Talk page? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 21:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
As you see, I've changed it accordingly. I'll try to keep it updated in the following days. --Tone 12:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Great. Any idea where it's possible to get free photographic material about the election activity (campaigns, debates etc.)? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If someone takes photos of the posters, I think that's ok. From TV debates, we probably won't get free images. In the 2007 election article, we also have the runoff ballot and the map of electoral units, I believe we can get them this time as well. Also see the 2011 election article. --Tone 13:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking more of, for example, Pahor doing his community service or Zver at one of the rallies, or Türk at the event in Križanke. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
For these, someone would have to visit the events, take photos, and release them into public domain. News agencies usually don't do that. --Tone 16:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Reorganise?[edit]

Should we reorganise the article after the end of the 2st round? Should we move the Zver section under the Failed/Withdrawn heading? We should move the Campaign, Polls and Results sections under a new heading called First round, or something similar and start a new section called Second round, with the same sub headings as the First round one. Thoughts? Improvements? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, maybe we should change the colour bar under Türk to blue so it matches the rest of the article. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 16:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My idea was to match the style of the 2007 election article, as much as the situation allows (different background, less candidates, etc.) As there were just three candidates, I wrote some lines about every one of them (as opposed to 2007 where we highlighted just 4 most prominent ones). What needs to be done now is to expand the reactions to the first round and create a section about the runoff campaign - together with the results and reactions after 2 December. The full results table can go to the bottom. Regarding the colour bar, "independent" is grey as specified in the template. I don't see a particular need to change it, as the legend makes it pretty clear what it is about. --Tone 16:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the what you've suggested, but can't really shake the feeling that each of the rounds should be clearly separated into their own heading. They would each have the same subsections but it would make the article easier to navigate. This is essentially the same as the 2007 article except for the one extra layer of organisation which I would like to ad (perhaps to the 2007 article as well; it would be a trivial matter technically). I didn't realise that the template had specifications, so I withdraw that proposal as well as the one about moving the Zver section. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 19:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Issues?[edit]

It would be nice to see the article covers not just the horserace, but also the issues that were important during the campaign. Since I lack the knowledge to write such, I'm going to try and place an expert-attention tag on the article. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It would also be nice if someone had given this sort of message to the candidates. Maybe we could place a tag on them as well. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 17:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)